A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.

Owing Partnership Tax As A Partner

 

We have wrapped-up (almost) another filing season here at Galactic Command. I include “almost” as we have nonprofit 990s due next month, but for the most part the heavy lifting is done.

Tax seasons 2020 and 2021 have been a real peach.

I am looking at a tax case that mirrors a conversation I was having with one of our CPAs two or three days ago. He was preparing a return for someone with significant partnership investments. The two I looked at are commonly described as “trader” partnerships.

The tax reporting for trader partnerships can be confusing, especially for younger practitioners. A normal investment partnership buys and sells stocks and securities, collects interest and dividends and has capital gains or losses along the way. The tax reporting shows interest and dividends and capital gains and losses – in short, it makes sense.

The trader partnership adds one more thing: it actively buys and sells stocks and securities as a business activity, so to speak. Think of it as a day trader as opposed to a long-term investor. The tax issue is that one has interest, dividends and capital gains and losses from the trader side as well as the nontrader side. The trader partnership separates the two, with the result that trading dividends (as an example) might be reported somewhere different on the Schedule K-1 from nontrading dividends. If you don’t know the theory, it doesn’t make sense.

The two partnerships pumped out meaningful taxable income.

What they did not do was pump out equivalent cash distributions. In fact, I would say that the partnerships distributed approximately enough cash to pay the taxes thereon, assuming that the partner was near the highest tax bracket.

The client had issues with the draft tax return.

Why?

There was no way he could have that much income as he did not receive that much cash.

And therein is a lesson in partnership taxation.

Let’s take a look at the Dodd case.

Dodd was the office manager at a D.C. law firm. The firm specialized in real estate and construction law.

She in turn became a 33.5% member in a partnership (Cadillac) transacting in – wait on it – the purchase, leasing and sale of real property. The other 66.5% partner was an attorney-partner in the law firm.

Routine so far.

Cadillac did well in 2013. Her share of gains from property sales was over a $1 million. Her cash distributions were approximately $200 grand.

Got it: 20 cents on the dollar.

When she prepared her individual return, she included that $1 million-plus gain as well as partnership losses. She owed around $170 grand with the return.

She did not send a check for the amount due.

The case has been bogged-down in tax procedure for several years. The IRS wanted its tax, and Dodd in turn requested Collections (CDP) hearings. We have had three rounds of back-and-forth, with the result that we are still talking about the case in 2021.

Her argument?

Simple. She had never received the $1 million. The money instead went to the bank to pay down a line of credit.

This is going to turn out badly for Dodd.

At 30 thousand feet, partnership taxation is relatively intuitive. A partnership does not pay taxes itself. Rather it files a tax return, and the partners in the partnership are allocated their share of the income and are themselves responsible for paying taxes on that share.

The complexity in partnership taxation comes primarily from how one allocates the income, as tax attorneys and CPAs have had decades to bend the rules.

Notice that I did not say anything about cash distributions.

Mind you, it is bad business to pump-out taxable income without distributing cash to cover the tax, but it is unlikely that a partnership will distribute cash exactly equal to its income. Why? Here are a couple of reasons that come immediately to mind:

·      Depreciation

The partnership buys something and depreciates it. It is likely that the depreciation (which follows tax rules) will not equal the cash payments for whatever was bought.

·      Debt

Any cash used to repay the bank is cash not available to distribute to the partners.

There is, by the way, a technique to discourage creditors of a partner from taking a partner’s partnership interest. Why would a creditor do this? To get to those distributions, of course.

There is a legal issue here, however. Let’s say that you, me and Lucy decided to form a partnership. Lucy has financial difficulties, and one of her creditors takes over her partnership interest. You and I did not form a partnership with Lucy’s creditor; we formed a partnership with Lucy. That creditor cannot just come in and force you and me to be partners with him/her. The best the creditor can do is get a “charging order,” which means the creditor receives only the right to Lucy’s distributions. The creditor cannot otherwise vote, demand the sale of assets or force the termination of the partnership.

What do you and I do in response to the new guy?

The creditor will have to report Lucy’s share of the partnership income, of course.

We in turn make no distributions to Lucy - or to the new guy. The partnership distributes to you and me, but that creditor is on his/her own. Sorry. Not. Go away.

As you can guess, creditors are not big fans of going after debtor partnership interests.

Back to Dodd.

What did the Court say?

No matter the reason for nondistribution, each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share.”

To restate:

Each partner is taxed on the its distributive share of partnership income without regard to whether the income is actually distributed.”

Dodd had no hope with this argument.

Maybe she would have better luck with her Collections appeal, but that is not the topic of our discussion this time.

We have been discussing Dodd v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-118.

Abandoning A Partnership Interest

I suspect that most taxpayers know that there is a difference between long-term capital gains and ordinary income. Long-term capital gains receive a lower tax rate, incentivizing one to prefer long-terms gains, if at all possible.

Capital losses are not as useful. Capital losses offset capital gains, whether short-term or long-term. If one has net capital losses left over, then one can claim up to $3,000 of such losses to offset non-capital gain income (think your W-2).

That $3,000 number has not changed since I was in school.

And there is an example of a back-door tax increase. Congress has imposed an effective tax increase by not pegging the $3,000 to (at least) the rate of inflation for the last how-many decades. It is the same thing they have done with the threshold amount for the net investment income or the additional Medicare tax. It is an easy way to raise taxes without publicly raising taxes.

I am looking at a case where two brothers owned Edwin Watts Golf. Most of the stores were located on real estate also owned by the brothers, so the brothers owned two things: a golf supply business and the real estate it was housed in.

In 2003 a private equity firm (Wellspring) offered the brothers $93 million for the business. The brothers took the money (so would I), kept the real estate and agreed to certain terms, such as Wellspring having control over any sale of the business. The brothers also received a small partnership position with Wellspring.

Why did they keep the real estate? Because the golf businesses were paying rent, meaning that even more money went their way.

The day eventually came when Wellspring wanted out; that is what private equity does, after all. It was looking at two offers: one was with Dick’s Sporting Goods and the other with Sun Capital.  Dick’s Sporting already had its own stores and would have no need for the existing golf shop locations. The brothers realized that would be catastrophic for the easy-peasy rental income that was coming in, so they threw their weight behind the offer by Sun Capital.

Now, one does not own a private equity firm by being a dummy, so Wellspring wanted something in return for choosing Sun Capital over Dick’s Sporting.

Fine, said the brothers: you can keep our share of the sales proceeds.

The brothers did not run the proposed transaction past their tax advisor. This was unfortunate, as there was a tax trap waiting to spring.  

Generally speaking, the sale or exchange of a partnership interest results in capital gain or loss. The partners received no cash from the sale. Assuming they had basis (that is, money invested) in the partnership, the sale or exchange would have resulted in a capital loss.

Granted, one can use capital losses against capital gains, but that means one needs capital gains.   What if you do not have enough gains? Any gains? We then get back to an obsolete $3,000 per year allowance. Have a big enough loss and one would need the lifespan of a Tolkien elf to use-up the loss.

The brothers’ accountant found out what happened during tax season and well after the fact. He too knew the issue with capital losses. He played a card, in truth the only card he had. Could what happened be reinterpreted as the abandonment of a partnership interest?

There is something you don’t see every day.

Let’s talk about it.

This talk gets us into Code sections, as the reasoning is that one does not have a “sale or exchange” of a partnership interest if one abandons the interest. This gets the tax nerd away from the capital gain/loss requirement of Section 741 and into the more temperate climes of Section 165. One would plan the transaction to get to a more favorable Code section (165) and avoid a less favorable one (741). 

There are hurdles here, though. The first two are generally not a problem, but the third can be brutal.

The first two are as follows:

(1) The taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the interest; and

(2)  The taxpayer must show an affirmative act of abandonment.

This is not particularly hard to do, methinks. I would send a letter to the tax matters or general partner indicating my intent to abandon the interest, and then I would send (to all partners, if possible) a letter that I have in fact abandoned my interest and relinquished all rights and benefits thereunder. This assumes there is no partners’ meeting. If there was a meeting, I would do it there. Heck, I might do both to avoid all doubt.

What is the third hurdle?

There can be no “consideration” on the way out.

Consideration in tax means more than just receiving money. It also includes someone assuming debt you were previously responsible for.

The rule-of-thumb in a general partnership is that the partners are responsible for their allocable share of partnership debt. This is a problem, especially if one is not interested in being liable for any share of any debt. This is how we got to limited partnerships, where the general partner is responsible for the debts and the limited partners are not.

Extrapolating the above, a general partner in a general partnership is going to have issues abandoning a partnership interest if the partnership has debt. The partnership would have to pay-off that debt, refinance the debt from recourse to nonrecourse, or perhaps a partner or group of partners could assume the debt, excluding the partner who wants to abandon.

Yea, the planning can be messy for a general partnership.

It would be less messy for a limited partner in a limited partnership.

Then we have the limited liability companies. (LLCs). Those bad boys have a splash of general partnership, a sprinkling of limited partnership, and they can result in a stew of both rules.

The third plank to the abandonment of a partnership interest can be formidable, depending on how the entity is organized and how the debts are structured. If a partner wants an abandonment, it is more likely than not that pieces on the board have to be moved in order to get there.   

The brothers’ accountant however had no chance to move pieces before Wellspring sold Edwin Watts Golf. He held his breath and prepared tax returns showing the brothers as abandoning their partnership interests. This gave them ordinary losses, meaning that the losses were immediately useful on their tax returns.

The IRS caught it and said “no way.”

There were multiple chapters in the telling of this story, but in the end the Court decided for the IRS.

Why?

Because the brothers had the option of structuring the transaction to obtain the tax result they desired. If they wanted an abandonment, then they should have taken the steps necessary for an abandonment. They did not. There is a long-standing doctrine in the Code that a taxpayer is allowed to structure a transaction anyway he/she wishes, but once structured the taxpayer has to live with the consequences. This doctrine is not tolerant of taxpayer do-overs.

The brothers had a capital and not an ordinary loss. They were limited to capital gains plus $3 grand per year. Yay.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Watts, T.C. Memo 2017-114.

The New Qualified Business Deduction

I spent a fair amount last week looking over the new IRS Regulations on the qualified business deduction. It was a breezy and compact 184 pages, although it reads longer than that.

I debated blogging on this topic. While one of the most significant tax changes in decades, the deduction is difficult to discuss without tear-invoking side riffs. 

But – if you are in business and you are not a “C” corporation (that is, the type that pays its own taxes) - you need to know about this new deduction.

Let’s swing the bat:

1.    This is a business deduction. It is 20% of something. We will get back to what that something is.

2.    There historically has been a spread between C-corporation tax rates and non-C-corporation tax rates. It is baked into the system, and tax advisors have gotten comfortable understanding its implications. The new tax law rattled the cage by reducing the C-corporation tax rate to 21%. Without some relief for non-C-corporation entities, lawyers and accountants would have had their clients folding their S corporation, partnership and LLC tents and moving them to C-corporation campgrounds.

3.    It is sometimes called a “passthrough” deduction, but that is a misnomer. It is more like a non-C-corporation deduction. A sole proprietorship can qualify, as well as rentals, farms and traditional passthroughs like S corporations, LLCs and partnerships. Heck even estates and trusts are in on the act.

4.    But not all businesses will qualify. There are two types of businesses that will not qualify:

a.     Believe it or not, in the tax world your W-2 job is considered a trade or business. It is the reason that you are allowed to deduct your business mileage (at least, before 2018 you were). Your W-2 however will not qualify for purposes of this deduction.

b.    Certain types of businesses are not invited to the party: think doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar. Think of them as the “not too cool” crowd.

                                                   i.There is however a HUGE exception.

5.   Congress wanted you to have skin in the game in order to get this 20% deduction. Skin initially meant employees, so to claim this deduction you needed Payroll. At the last moment Congress also allowed somebody with substantial Depreciable Property to qualify, as some businesses are simply not set-up with a substantial workforce in mind. If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, however, you do not get to play.

a.     But just like (4)(b) above, there is a HUGE exception.

6.   Let’s set up the HUGE exception:

a.     If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, you do not get to play.

b.    If you are one of “those businesses” - doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar - you do not get to play.

c.     Except …

                                                   i. … if your income is below certain limits, you still get to play.

                                                 ii. The limit is $157,500 for non-marrieds and $315,000 for marrieds.

                                              iii. Hit the limit and you provoke math:

1.    If you are non-married, there is a phase-out range of $50 grand. Get to $207,500 and you are asked to leave.

2.    If you are married, double the range to $100 grand; at $415,000 you too have to leave.

                                               iv. Let’s consider an easy example: A married dentist with household taxable income of less than $315,000 can claim the passthrough deduction, as long as the income is not from a W-2.

1.    At $415,000 that dentist cannot claim anything and has to leave.

                                                 v. Depending on the fact pattern, the mathematics are like time-travelling to a Led Zeppelin concert. The environment is familiar, but everything has a disorienting fog about it.

1.    Why?

a.     The not-too-cool crowd has to leave the party once they get to $207,500/$415,000.

b.    Simultaneously, the too-cool crowd has to ante-up either Payroll and/or Depreciable Property as they get to $207,500/$415,000. There is no more automatic invitation just because their income is below a certain level.

c.     And both (a) and (b) are going on at the same time.

                                                                                                               i.     While not Stairway to Heaven, the mathematics are … interesting.

7.    The $207,500/$415,000 entertainment finally shows up: Payroll and Depreciable Property. Queue the music.

a.     The deduction starts at 20% of the specific trade or business’s net profit.

b.    It can go down. Here is how:

                                                   i. You calculate half of your Payroll.

                                                 ii. You calculate one-quarter of your Payroll and add 2.5% of your Depreciable Assets.

                                              iii. You take the bigger number.

                                               iv. You are not done. You next take that number and compare it to the 20% number from (a).

                                                 v. Take the smaller number.

c.     You are not done yet.

                                                   i. Take your taxable income without the passthrough deduction, whatever that deduction may someday be. May we live long enough.

                                                 ii. If you have capital gains included in your taxable income, there is math. In short, take out the capital gain. Bad capital gain.

                                              iii. Take what’s left and multiply by 20%.

                                               iv. Compare that number to (7)(b)(v).

1.    Take the smaller number.

8.    Initially one was to do this calculation business by business.

a.     Tax advisors were not looking forward to this.

b.    The IRS last week issued Regulations allowing one to combine trades or businesses (within limits, of course).

                                                   i. And tax advisors breathed a collective sigh of relief.

c.     But not unsurprisingly, the IRS simultaneously took away some early planning ideas that tax advisors had come up with.

                                                   i. Like “cracking” a business between the too-cool and not-too-cool crowds.  

And there is a high-altitude look at the new qualified business deduction.

If you have a non-C-corporation business, hopefully you have heard from your tax advisor. If you have not, please call him/her. This new deduction really is a big deal.

Deducting a Divorce

I am looking at two points on a case:

(1)  The IRS wanted $1,760,709; and

(2)  The only issue before the Court was a deduction for legal and professional fees.

That is one serious legal bill.

The taxpayer was a hedge fund manager. The firm had three partners who provided investment advisory services to several funds. For this they received 1.5% of assets under management as well as 20% of the profits (that is, the “carry”). The firm decided to defer payment of the investment and performance fees from a particular fund for 2006, 2007 and 2008.

2008 brought us the Great Recession and taxpayer’s spouse filing for divorce.

By 2009 the firm was liquidating.

The divorce was granted in 2011.

Between the date of filing and the date the divorce was granted, taxpayer received over $47 million in partnership distributions from the firm.

You know that point came up during divorce negotiations.

To be fair, not all of the $47 million can be at play. Seems to me the only reachable part would be the amount “accrued” as of the date of divorce filing.

He hired lawyers. He hired a valuation expert.

Turns out that approximately $4.7 million of the $47 million represented deferred compensation and was therefore a marital asset. That put the marital estate at slightly over $15 million.

Upon division, the former spouse received a Florida house and over $6.6 million in cash.

He in turn paid approximately $3 million in professional fees. Seems expensive, but they helped keep over $42 million out of the marital estate.

He deducted the $3 million.

Which the IRS bounced.

What do you think is going on here?

The issue is whether the professional fees are business related (in which case they are deductible) or personal (in which case they are not). Taxpayer argued that the fees were deductible because he was defending a claim against his distributions and deferred compensation from the hedge fund. He was a virtual poster boy for a business purpose.

He has a point.

The IRS fired back: except for her marriage to taxpayer, the spouse would have no claim to the deferred compensation. Her claim stemmed entirely because of her marriage to him. The cause of those professional fees was the marriage, which is about as personal as an event can be. The tax Code does not allow for the deduction of personal expenses.

The IRS has a point.

The tax doctrine the IRS argued is called origin-of-the-claim. It has many permutations, but the point is to identify what caused the mess in the first place. If the cause was business or income-producing, you may have a deduction. If the cause was personal, well, thanks for playing.

But a divorce can have a business component. For example, there is a tax case involving control over a dividend-paying corporation; there is another where the soon-to-be-ex kept interfering in the business. In those cases, the fees were deductible, as there was enough linkage to the business activity.

The Court looked, but it could not find similar linkage in this case.

In the divorce action at issue, petitioner was neither pursuing alimony from Ms [ ] nor resisting an attempt to interfere with his ongoing business activities.

Petitioner has not established that Ms [ ] claim related to the winding down of [the hedge fund]. Nor has petitioner established that the fees he incurred were “ordinary and necessary” to his trade or business.

While the hedge fund fueled the cash flow, the divorce action did not otherwise involve the fund. There was no challenge to his interest in the fund; he was not defending against improper interference in fund operations; there was no showing that her action led to his winding down of the fund.

Finding no business link, the Court determined that the origin of the claim was personal.

Meaning no deduction for the professional fees.

NOTE: While this case did not involve alimony, let us point out that the taxation of alimony is changing in 2019. For many years, alimony – as long as the magic tax words were in the agreement – was deductible by the payor and taxable to the recipient. It has been that way for my entire professional career, but that is changing. Beginning in 2019, only grandfathered alimony agreements will be deductible/taxable, with “grandfathered” meaning the alimony agreement was in place by December 31, 2018.

Mind you, this does not mean that there will be no alimony for new divorces. What it does mean is that one will not get a deduction for paying alimony if one divorces in 2019 or later. Conversely, one will not be taxed upon receiving alimony if one divorces in 2019 or later.

The Congressional committee reports accompanying the tax change noted that alimony is frequently paid from a higher-income to a lower -income taxpayer, resulting in a net loss to the Treasury. Changing the tax treatment would allow the Treasury to claw back to the payor’s higher tax rate. Possible, but I suspect it more likely that alimony payments will eventually decrease by approximately 35% - the maximum federal tax rate – as folks adjust to the new law.

Our case this time was Sky M Lucas v Commissioner.

Issuing 1099s In Anger

Several years ago, I received an angry call from another CPA.

He had lost a couple of key partners, to which he responded with an almost Game-of-Thrones vindictiveness. He had been charged with issuing false Form 1099s to his former partners.

They dragged him into Court for this and other reasons.

I had looked into the 1099 matter. It is not every day a CPA is charged with issuing false tax forms.

Why would somebody do this: issue false 1099s?

Because chum in the water.

Let’s talk about the Petrunak case.

Petrunak was a pyrotechnician.

This guy made fireworks. He owned a company called Abyss Special FX, Inc. (Abyss), and he could do both indoor and outdoor fireworks displays.

This also meant that he was under regulation by the Bureau of Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms and Explosives (ATF).

A couple of ATF agents conducted a mandatory inspection and found a number of violations. Petrunak challenged their findings and had his day in administrative court. I do not know what the details were, but the judge revoked Petrunak’s fireworks license.

So much for Abyss and his paycheck.

Petrunak reckoned he lost a lot of money – both as real-money losses and as money he would have made except for the ATF agents.

He had time to think about it. He thought about it for five years.

He had Abyss send each of them a Form 1099-MISC for $250,000.

Half a million. He figured that was about what they had cost him.

Abyss deducted that half million. As Abyss was an S corporation, there was a big loss passed-through to Petrunak to use on his individual return.

Needless to say, both ATF agents omitted that 1099 from his/her individual tax return.

One agent however got pulled for audit.

The IRS wanted taxes of over $100 grand. She spent a lot of time contesting and unraveling that mess.

Exactly what Petrunak wanted. Forms 1099 are chum in the water to the IRS.

Problem is, the IRS pursued Petrunak after the ATF agent’s audit. He admitted to filing those 1099s, but he was right in doing so and those two had lied – to a judge, unbelievable! – and an IRS person told him that he might be able to issue 1099s for his business costs. He estimated his costs to be half a million.

The IRS charged him with three counts of making false and fraudulent IRS forms.

He fought back, going to the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals.

How did it turn out?

Petrunak is going to prison for 24 months.

His accounting was fantastical, but I get his anger.

Circling back, the accountant who called me was angry because I did not agree with him.

To be kind, let’s say his side of story was … creative.

But then, have a CPA play in a field with accounts receivable, deferred compensation, cash transfers, buyout agreements and whatnot and a talented – and motivated - practitioner can get creative.

He did.

Problem was: he picked a fight with tax CPAs. Two of them.

Bad call. 

It cost him a few bucks.