How To Lose A Tax Deduction For Wages Paid

This weeks’ tax puzzler involves a mom and her kids.

We again are talking about attorneys. Both mom and dad are attorneys, and mom is self-employed.

Sometimes she brought her children to the office, where they helped her with the following:

·        answering the telephone

·        mail

·        greeting clients

·        photocopying

·        shredding unneeded documents

·        moving files

Mom believed that having her children work would help them understand the value of money and lay the foundations for a lifelong work ethic.

She had three kids, and for 2006, 2007 and 2008 she deducted wages of $5,500, $10,953 and $12,273, respectively.

There are tax advantages to hiring a minor child. For example, if the child is age 17 or younger, there are no social security (that is, FICA) taxes. In addition, there is no federal unemployment tax for a child under age 21, but that savings pales in comparison to the FICA savings.

Then you have other options, such as having the child fund an IRA. All IRAs require income subject to social security tax. It doesn’t matter if one is an employee (FICA tax) or is self-employed (self-employment taxes), but social security is the price of admission.

Her children were all under the age of ten. Can you imagine what those IRAs would be worth 50 years from now?

The IRS disagreed with her deducting payroll, and they wound up in Tax Court.

Your puzzler question is: why?

(1) You: The Court did not believe that the kids really did anything. Maybe she was just trying to deduct their allowances.

Me: The tax law becomes skeptical when related parties are involved, and you cannot get much more related than a mother and her children.  It was heightened in this case as the children were so young. For the most part, though, the Court believed her when she described what the children did.

(2) You: Mom used the money she “paid” the kids for their support – like paying their school tuition, for example.

Me: The tax law disallows a deduction if the money is disguised support, which tax law expects to be provided a dependent child. In this case, the Court saw the children buying books, games and normal kid items; some money also went to Section 529 plans. The Court did not believe that mom was trying to deduct support expenses.

(3) You: She could not provide paperwork to back-up her deductions. What if she paid the kids in cash, for example?

Me: Good job. One reads that the Court wanted to believe her, but she presented no records. She did not provide bank statements showing the kids depositing their paychecks, presumably because the children did not have bank accounts.

She did not provide copies of the Section 529 plans. That was so easy to do that I found the failure odd.

At least she could show the Court a Form W-2.

Mom had not even issued W-2s.

The Court was exasperated.

It allowed her a deduction of $250 per child, as it believed that the kids worked. It could not do more in the absence of any documentation.

And there is the answer to the puzzler.

Too often it is not mind-numbing tax details that trip-up a taxpayer. Sometimes there is just a lapse of common sense.

Like issuing a W-2 if you want the IRS to believe you paid wages to somebody.

 

Pay Payroll Taxes Or Go Out Of Business?

We have talked before about the “big boy” penalty. It is one of the harshest penalties in the tax Code.

This is a payroll related penalty. It is not because you were late with a payment or failed to send in a return on time. No sir, it kicks in when you do not send the government any money at all.

And I am reading about two guys who decided to play big boy. One of them surprised me.

The company itself was based in Rhode Island and provided wireless internet in public spaces. Think Facebook at the airport, for example.

Business tanked. Cash was tight. Vendors did not get paid, including the IRS.

The company needed help. They hired Richard Schiffmann as president in October, 2004. In October, 2005 he brought in Stephen Cummings (who had worked there previously as a consultant) to be chief financial officer.

Cummings quickly found out they had problems with back taxes.

The Board granted check-signing authority to the pair: Schiffmann up to $100,000 and Cummings up to $75,000.

The two tried; they really did. But there was nothing there. The Board fired the two in June, 2006.

You know that the IRS eventually knocked on the door. They were angry and they wanted scalps. They went after Schiffmann and Cummings for the big boy penalty.

In the literature, this is known as the trust fund recovery or responsible person penalty. It addresses the income and FICA taxes withheld from employees. Mind you, the IRS wants the employer FICA also, but it is emphasizing the employee withholding. The IRS takes the position that this was never the employer’s money, whose function was solely to transfer the money as agent for the employees to the IRS.

The penalty is 100%.

It is intended to be Defcon 1.

The IRS went after Schiffmann for $394,334 and against Cummings for $254,280.

Think about this. You got hired. You were there for nine months. I doubt you got paid anywhere near $254,280. This is the lousiest job ever.

The two fought back, although there were some procedural misses we will not discuss but which leave me scratching my head. The two for example raised the following arguments:

(1) Schiffmann argued that he did not learn of the liability until late 2005. The most he could be liable for is two or three quarters, which would not add-up to $394 thousand.

He had a point. The penalty technically goes quarter-by-quarter.

But only in a classroom or in a textbook. In the real world, the IRS will argue that – if you could write a check – then you could have written checks for both current and past payroll taxes. Those past taxes become your problem.

And Schiffmann could write checks up to $100,000. Cummings could write up to $75,000.

Gentlemen, let me introduce problem. Problem, let me introduce gentlemen.

(2) They argued that all monies were encumbered and spoken for. They remitted what they could.

This is the “I had to pay … or the business would have folded” argument.

The IRS will respect encumbrances, but there better be a legal obligation. A pinky swear is not enough. 

The IRS will not respect a responsible person prioritizing them down, when the IRS had as much right to what money may exist as anyone else.

Schiffmann and Cummings could not meet that test.

(3) The Board would not let them pay certain bills.

More specifically, the Board would not let them pay taxes.

Now we have something. The IRS looked into this. It decided that there were two directors who raised a fuss, but it also decided that those two could be outvoted by the remaining directors.

And the directors never formally voted on a resolution, so the IRS could presuppose that the two would have been outvoted.

Then the IRS made an interesting observation: EVEN IF the Board has prohibited the two from paying the taxes, the most that would have happened is that the Board would have joined them in also being subject to the penalty. It would not have gotten Schiffmann and Cummings off the hook.

The two were held responsible.

Cummings was the one who surprised me.

He used to be an IRS field auditor.

The 2014 Tax Act and Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs)

We know that Congress passed, and the President signed, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 at the end of last year. This is the tax bill that retroactively resurrected certain tax deductions that many taxpayers have become used to, such as deducting sales taxes (rather than state income taxes)  should one live in Tennessee, Florida or Texas or deducting (a certain amount of) tuition payments if one’s child is in college.

There is something else this bill did that was not as well publicized.

It has to do with professional employer organizations, known as PEO’s. These are companies that provide human resource (HR) functions, such as the paperwork involved in hiring, as well as running payroll and depositing payroll taxes and other withholdings.

There has long been a hitch with PEOs and payroll taxes: the IRS considered the underlying employer to still be liable for withholdings if the PEO failed to remit or failed to do so timely. The IRS took the position that an employer could not delegate its responsibility for those withholdings. To phrase it differently, the employer could delegate the task but could not delegate the responsibility.

You can guess what happened next. There were cases of PEO’s diverting withholdings for their own use, then going out of business and leaving their employer-clients in the lurch. If you were one of those employer-clients, the experience proved to be very expensive. You had paid payroll taxes a first time to the PEO and then a second time when the IRS held you responsible.

The answer was to watch over the PEO like a hawk. The IRS encouraged employer-clients to routinely go into the electronic payment system (EFTPS), for example, to be certain that payroll taxes were being deposited.

That unfortunately collided with many an employer’s reason to use a PEO in the first place: to have someone else “take care of it.”

Back to the tax bill. Stuck in with the tax extenders was something called the ABLE Act, which is a Section-529-like-plan, but for disabled individuals rather than for college expenses.

Stuck (in turn) onto the ABLE Act was a brand-new Code section just for PEOs. The provision requires the IRS to establish a PEO certification program by July 1, 2015. There will be a $1,000 annual fee to participate, but – once approved – the IRS will allow the PEO to be solely responsible for the employer-client’s payroll taxes.

You have to admit, this is a marketing bonanza if you own a PEO. It will separate you from a non-PEO who is bidding on the same prospective client.

The PEO will have to post a bond in order to participate in the program. In addition the PEO will have to be audited annually by a CPA. The PEO will have to submit that audited financial statement to the IRS.

I do not know the answer as of this writing, but I have a strong suspicion the AICPA was in the room when that audit requirement was included. Why do I say that? Because only CPAs are allowed to render an opinion that financial statements are “presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.” 

NOTE: That would be CPAs who practice as auditors. There are CPAS who do not. For example, I specialize in taxes.

There is – by the way – risk to the PEO. This is not a one way street. The PEO will be responsible for the payroll taxes, even if the employer-client does not pay the PEO.

No Job Is Worth This Penalty

A few years ago someone asked me to “run their payroll.” This particular place had enough issues to fuel multiple seasons of Game of Thrones, among the least of which was an inability or unwillingness to pay their payroll on time.  It was just a matter of time until someone reported them to a government agency. I was to timely process the payroll, transfer funds, make tax deposits and so on.

My answer?

Not a chance.

I have no problem processing a payroll. The one thing I will not do however is involve myself with making payroll tax deposits.

Why?

There is an IRS penalty out there called the “responsible person” penalty, which we have previously referred to as the “big boy” penalty. This is gallows humor, and you want nothing to do with this boy. The IRS becomes very grim when one withholds payroll taxes and fails to remit them to the government. They consider it theft. The IRS roots around to learn who in the company had control over cash – that is, who decides who to pay, who can sign checks, that type of thing. If that person is you, you may be a “responsible person,” meaning that you are also liable for the payroll taxes. The IRS can chase the company, it can chase you, it can chase both of you. You have stepped into someone else’s problem.

Where have I seen this? Mostly it stems from severe cash flow pressures, such as after the 2008 business crash. My last responsible person penalty client was a contractor on the Kentucky side of Cincinnati. What made it frightening was the IRS interviewing the controller/office manager in addition to the owners. Why? Because, once in a blue moon, she would write a check, mostly if there was no one else available to sign. That woman was understandably terrified.

I am reading a District Court decision coming out of Virginia. From 1990 to 2000 Brenda Horne was the office manager for a medical practice. Her duties included:

·       Billing customers

·       Collecting accounts receivable

·       Making bank deposits

·       Writing checks

·       Preparing, signing and filing payroll tax returns

·       Decisions about hiring, firing and employee compensation

The company stopped making payroll tax deposits in 2006.  Brenda continued writing and signing checks to everyone but the IRS.

The IRS came in. The company owed over $2.8 million in back payroll taxes.

And now, so does Ms. Horne.

Perhaps she was part of this. Perhaps she was under-informed and went along in order to keep her job. She wouldn’t be the first. The fatal fact? That she could decide who to pay, who not to pay, and could sign checks accordingly. The IRS did not get paid, and they held her responsible.

Granted, the owners of the company are responsible long before an office manager is, but that is not the way the IRS approaches this. The IRS is happy to have several responsible persons. That increases the odds of collecting from someone. Theoretically, she could sue the medical practice and its owners for restitution if the IRS compelled her to pay. Considering that the company did not – or could not – pay the taxes when due, I am skeptical that it could pay Brenda Horne now.

It does not matter what she was paid for being an office manager. It cannot approach $2.8 million.

And the company’s loyalty to her?

She got fired at the end of 2010.