Government Forces Sale to Cover Partner’s Tax Debt

 I was reading a case recently that bothered me. It involves something that – fortunately – I rarely see in practice.

Here is the Code section:

§ 7403 - Action to enforce lien or to subject property to payment of tax

(a) Filing. In any case where there has been a refusal or neglect to pay any tax, or to discharge any liability in respect thereof, whether or not levy has been made, the Attorney General or his delegate, at the request of the Secretary, may direct a civil action to be filed in a district court of the United States to enforce the lien of the United States under this title with respect to such tax or liability or to subject any property, of whatever nature, of the delinquent, or in which he has any right, title, or interest, to the payment of such tax or liability. For purposes of the preceding sentence, any acceleration of payment under section 6166(g) shall be treated as a neglect to pay tax.

(b) Parties. All persons having liens upon or claiming any interest in the property involved in such action shall be made parties thereto.

(c) Adjudication and decree. The court shall, after the parties have been duly notified of the action, proceed to adjudicate all matters involved therein and finally determine the merits of all claims to and liens upon the property, and, in all cases where a claim or interest of the United States therein is established, may decree a sale of such property, by the proper officer of the court, and a distribution of the proceeds of such sale according to the findings of the court in respect to the interests of the parties and of the United States. If the property is sold to satisfy a first lien held by the United States, the United States may bid at the sale such sum, not exceeding the amount of such lien with expenses of sale, as the Secretary directs.

(d) Receivership. In any such proceeding, at the instance of the United States, the court may appoint a receiver to enforce the lien, or, upon certification by the Secretary during the pendency of such proceedings that it is in the public interest, may appoint a receiver with all the powers of a receiver in equity.

And here is where you leave your tax CPA and hire a tax attorney.

Section 7403 permits a court to authorize the sale of property when a delinquent person owns property with a nondelinquent person. The IRS cannot do this on its own power, however; it must first go to district court and obtain approval.

To be fair, one is deep into the IRS Collection machinery before Section 7403 is even an issue. I would be screaming at you – and likely fired you as a client – long before we got here, unless bad fortune was involved. If there was bad fortune, we likely would be submitting an offer in compromise.

The heavyweight case in this area is United States v Rodgers. Rodgers was a Texas gambler who died, leaving a $900,000 tax debt. He (well, now his estate) and his wife owned their home. Under Texas law the surviving spouse had a lifetime right to live in the home. The government of course wanted its money.

The case went all the way to the Supreme Court, which identified four issues before the government could force any sale to collect taxes.

 (1) Statutory authority

Does the taxpayer have any “right, title or interest” to the property in question?

 

In Rodgers, yes. The deceased had the same rights to the entire home as did the widow.

 

The type of ownership can have a drastic effect on the government’s ability to reach the asset. A tenancy by the entirety, for example, might result in a different answer from a tenancy in common (which we will see below). 

            (2) Constitutional authority

This goes back to eminent domain. The government is not an ordinary creditor in this situation; rather it is exercising the prerogatives of a sovereign. Think of the government as a super creditor.

            (3) Practical undercompensation

Think actuarial calculations. For example, one could think that a 50/50 split of marital assets is fair. However, the value of a life estate to a surviving spouse aged fifty can be up to 95% of the home’s sales price. The spread between 95% and 50% is referred to as “practical undercompensation.”

            (4) Four-factor balancing test

             (a)  Will a non-sale prejudice the government?

   (b) Does the spouse have a legally recognized expectation of the house not being sold?

   (c)  Will the spouse suffer prejudice from practical undercompensation and dislocation costs?

   (d)  What are the relative characters and values of the two ownership interests?

Subsequent application of Rodgers focuses on these four factors.

Let’s move on to Driscoll.

Thomas Driscoll was a dentist. He owned a dental practice with Dr Vockroth. Together they also owned the building in which the dental practice was located.

Common enough.

Dr Driscoll became substantially delinquent with his tax obligations.

In April 2023, the government filed a motion for forced sale of both the practice and the building.

Meanwhile. Dr V had no tax issues. He may have made the mistake of partnering with someone who did, but that was the extent of his culpability.

The government – to its credit – allowed additional time to sell both assets.

But there were issues: trying to sell a dental practice in a small town and a building housing said practice in said small town. Let’s just say there was limited interest in buying either.

The government now wanted a forced sale.

Let’s go through the Rodgers four factors:

One

The Court decided Dr V could not show that the government would not be prejudiced by going after 50% rather than 100% of the practice and building.

Yes, the double negative is a bit difficult to follow.

This was a practice in a small town. It was going to be tough enough to sell without trying to sell half rather than the whole.

         The court decided that factor one weighed in favor of a sale.

         Two

Was Dr V as a tenant in common subject to a forced sale?

Here is the Court discussing the real estate:

This conclusion is also supported by the fact that, unlike tenants by the entirety or joint tenants, tenants in common enjoy no protections from forced sales or partition actions.”

Tough to be a tenant in common in New Jersey.

The court decided factor two weighed in favor of a sale.

Three

 Was there prejudice to Dr V in terms of personal dislocation of costs and undercompensation of interest?

Here is the Court:

 Dr Vockroth asserts that he will be ‘forced to lay off all of [his] employees,’ and that he will ‘no longer be able to see [his]  patients.'”

OK, Dr V may be laying it on thick, but that does not mean there is no truth here. Relocating a practice costs money. There are – for example - additional electrical and plumbing needs before a building can house a dental practice. Patients may not follow. Employees may not follow. The court is playing cavalierly with other people’s lives.

Here is the court in its best Frasier Crane voice:

 Furthermore, even if Dr Vockroth is negatively affected by the LLC in some way, this is not an undue prejudice of a magnitude to prevent a forced sale. It is axiomatic that LLCs and partnerships change, fail, dissolve and are bought and sold with regularity. Partners die or sell their shares The reality is simply part of being in business, and Dr. Vockroth is not exempt from this fact, especially when he fails to offer any reliable evidence to support his contentions.”

What is Dr V to do: poll his patients and employees to see whether they would follow? Oh, that will go swimmingly.

BTW the sale of a dental practice will certainly include a noncompete, meaning that Dr V could not open a dental practice within so many miles of the existing practice. Well, he could, but he would be sued.

One would think a judge would know that.

Four

  The relative character and value of the property owned by the two owners.

There was not much play here as both doctors owned 50%.

The court decided that the government could foreclose on both the practice and the real estate.

Technically right, but lousy law. Consider this menacement from Rodgers:

We do emphasize, however, that the limited discretion accorded by § 7403 should be exercised rigorously and sparingly, keeping in mind the Government's paramount interest in prompt and certain collection of delinquent taxes.

Section 7403 is not taxpayer friendly.

Our case this time was United States v Driscoll, 2025 BL 2655, D.N.J. No. 3:18-cv-11762, 1/6/25.

Taxing A 5-Hour Energy Drink

 

I am skimming a decision from the Appeals Court for the District of Columbia. I am surprised that it is only 15 pages long, as it involves a gnarly intersection of partnership tax and the taxation of nonresident aliens.

Let’s talk about it.

In general, partnerships are not treated as a taxable entity. A partnership is a reporting entity; it reports income and expenses and then allocates the same to its partners for reporting on their tax returns. Mind you, this can get mind-numbing, as a partner in a partnership can itself be another partnership. Keep this going a few iterations and being a tax professional begins to lose its charm.

A partner will - again, in general - report the income as if the partner received the income directly rather than through the partnership. If it was ordinary income or capital gain to the partnership, it will likewise be ordinary income or capital gain to the partner.

Let’s introduce a nonresident alien partner.

We have another tranche of tax law to wade through.

A nonresident alien is fancy talk for someone who does not live in the United States. That person could still have U.S. income and U.S. tax, though.

How?

Well, through a partnership, for example.

Say the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. A nonresident alien generally pays tax on income received from sources within the United States. Let’s look at one type of income: business income. We will get to nonbusiness income in a moment.

The tax Code wants to know if that business income is “effectively connected” with a U.S. trade or business.

The business income in our example is effectively connected, as the partnership operates exclusively in the United States. One cannot be any more connected than that.

The partnership will issue Schedules K-1 to its partners, including its nonresident alien partner who will file a U.S. nonresident tax return (Form 1040-NR).

Question: Will any nonbusiness income on the K-1 be reportable on the nonresident?

The tax Code separates business and nonbusiness income because they might be taxed differently for nonresidents. Nonbusiness income can go from having 30% withholding at the source (think dividends) to not being taxed at all (think most types of interest income).

What if the Schedule K-1 reports capital gains?

I normally think of capital gains as nonbusiness income.

But they do not have to be.

There is a test:

If the income is derived from assets used or held for use in the conduct of an effectively connected business – and business activities were a material factor in generating the income  – then the income will taxable to a nonresident alien.

Think capital gain from the sale of farm assets. Held for use in farming? Check. Material factor in generating farm income? Check. This capital gain will be taxable to a nonresident.

Forget the K-1. Say that the nonresident alien sold his/her partnership interest altogether.

On first impression, I am not seeing capital gain from the sale of the partnership interest (rather than assets inside the partnership) as meeting the “held for use/material factor” test.

Problem: partnership taxation has something called the “hot asset” rule. The purpose is to disallow capital gains treatment to the extent any gain is attributable to certain no-no assets – that is, the “hot assets.”

An example of a hot asset is inventory.

The Code does not want the partnership to load up on inventory with substantial markup and then have a partner sell his/her partnership interest rather than wait for the partnership to sell the inventory. This would be a flip between ordinary and capital gain income, and the IRS is having none of it.

Question: have you ever had a 5-hour Energy drink?

That is the company we are talking about today.

Indu Rawat was a 29.2% partner in a Michigan partnership which sells 5-hour Energy. She sold her stake in 2008 for $438 million.

I can only wish.

At the time of sale, the company had inventory with a cost of $6.4 million and a sales price of $22.4 million. Her slice of the profit pending in that inventory was $6.5 million.

A hot asset.

The IRS wanted tax on the $6.5 million.

Mind you, Indu Rawat did not sell inventory. She sold a partnership interest in a business that owned inventory. That would be enough to catch you or me, but could the hot asset rule catch a nonresident alien?

The Tax Court agreed with the IRS that the hot asset gain was taxable to her.

That decision was appealed.

The Appeals Court reversed the Tax Court.

The Appeals Court noted that there had to be a taxable gain before the hot asset rule could kick in. The rule recharacterizes – but does not create – capital gain.

This capital gain does not appear to meet the “held for use/material factor test” we talked about above. You can recharacterize all you want, but when you start at zero, the amount recharacterized cannot be more than zero.

Indu Rawat won on Appeal.

By the way, tax law in this area has changed since Rawat’s sale. New law would tax Rawat on her share of effectively connected gain as if the partnership had sold all its assets at fair market value. Congress made a statement, and that statement was “no more.”

Our case this time was  Indu Rawat v Commissioner, No 23-1142 (D.C. Cir. July 23, 2024).

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.