When Does A Business "Start"?

There is a category of deductions that the tax Code refers to as “start up” or “pre-opening” expenses.

For the most part, you do not want to go there.

An active trade or business is allowed to deduct its normal and operating expenses (as defined and limited by the Code, of course). There is a trap in that description, and the trap is the word “active.”

What does it mean be active?

It means the business is up and running.

How can a business not be up and running?

Let's say that you are opening a Five Guys Burgers and Fries restaurant. You have all kinds of expenses - in addition to building the place - before you open the doors. You have to turn on the lights, hire and train employees, establish suppliers and receive inventory, and so forth.

All this before you sell your first hamburger.

The problem is that you cannot deduct these expenses, because you have not yet started business. You have to be in business before you can deduct your expenses. There is a Kafkaesque absurdity to the whole thing.

The Code however does step-in and provide the following safety valve in Section 195:

(a)Capitalization of expenditures

Except as otherwise provided in this section, no deduction shall be allowed for start-up expenditures.

(b)Election to deduct 

(1)Allowance of deduction If a taxpayer elects the application of this subsection with respect to any start-up expenditure
(A)the taxpayer shall be allowed a deduction for the taxable year in which the active trade or business begins in an amount equal to the lesser of

(i) the amount of start-up expenditures with respect to the active trade or business, or

(ii) $5,000, reduced (but not below zero) by the amount by which such start-up expenditures exceed $50,000, and

(B) the remainder of such start-up expenditures shall be allowed as a deduction ratably over the 180-month period beginning with the month in which the active trade or business begins.

I do not consider it much of a safety valve, as the best you can get is $5,000. Let the expenses go over $55,000 and you lose even that. You deduct the balance over 180 months.

That is 15 years. Think about it: you can start a kid in first grade and almost put him/her through college before you get to fully deduct your Five Guys start-up and pre-opening expenses.

And that is the problem: the period is so long that it effectively is a penalty. It is one thing when Walmart opens a super store, as they are towing the resources (and cash flow) of a Fortune 500. It is a different issue when a budding entrepreneur heads out there with a hope and a prayer.

Let’s look at the Tizard case.

Julie Tizard graduated from Baylor and entered the Air Force as a 2^nd lieutenant. While serving at Wright-Patterson in Dayton, Ohio, the USAF announced that women would be allowed to apply for pilot positions. Julie was all over that, becoming a pilot and rising through the ranks as instructor pilot, flight commander and wing flying safety officer.

In 1990 she started working as a full-time commercial pilot with United Airlines, where she flew 737s, 757s, 767s and the Airbus 320.

The FAA requires commercial pilots to retire at age 65.

Knowing that, she looked for things to do after she turned 65. She decided to start an aviation business in Arizona. She selected an airplane model (the Slingsby T-67C “Firefly”), a single engine propeller model that is fuel-efficient, has excellent visibility, is responsive and is “acrobatic.” Acrobatic apparently has a different meaning to pilots than to ordinary people – think of intentionally rolling or stalling the plane. You have as much chance of getting me on that plane as the Browns have of winning the Super Bowl this year.

She purchased the plane for $54,200. It turned out that the guy selling the plane was a real estate developer with a development in Phoenix. He expressed interest in her services. She was off to a promising start.

She posted a picture of herself with the plane on Facebook. She received 50 “likes.”

The same day she got the plane home, she took out an acquaintance whom she considered a potential client. Being promotional, Julie did not charge her.

Julie set-up an LLC (Tizard) for the business.

She worked up a business plan. She would start by offering aerial land surveys, flight charters and aviation photography, as well as professional aviation and safety consulting. The Firefly was well-designed for this use, and to the best of Julie’s knowledge she was the only person in central Arizona offering this menu of services.

She crunched the numbers and figured that she would break-even at 2.5 aviation hours per month. At 15 hours she was earning a meaningful profit.

Sounds like Julie knew what she was doing.

Time came to prepare her 2010 tax return. She had no income from the airplane and over $13 thousand of expenses.

The IRS bounced her return. They said she had not yet started business.

There are several factors that one considers in determining whether business activities have started:

         (1) Sales

         This is the best evidence, but she did not have any.

         (2) Advertising and marketing

She posted on Facebook and had approached both the seller of the plane as well as an acquaintance as potential customers.

         (3) Business Plan

She had given the matter some thought. She researched potential competition and had analyzed costs to the extent she knew how many flight hours per month were required to break-even.

Seems to me that she had one solid (factor (3)) and one so-so (factor (2)).

Problem is that factor (1) is the elephant in the room. Nothing gets the IRS to back off more than a real person handing over real money.

The Court seemed to like Julie:

The Court found the petitioner's testimony to be credible and forthright."

But the Court was not impressed with Julie's marketing:

However, other than the picture and short statement (that makes no mention of her aviation business) that she posted on her personal Facebook page ..., petitioner did nothing in 2010 to formally advertise to the general public ... or describe the various services that Tizard would offer to its clients."

That left a lot of pressure on factor (3). It was too much pressure, unfortunately:

Petitioner's ... efforts ... do not impress the Court as evidence that Tizard was actually functioning and performing the activities for which it was organized."

The Court decided she had not started business in 2010.  She had to run her expenses through the Section 195 filter. The best she could deduct was $5,000, and the balance would be allowed over the next 15 years.

Is there something she could have done differently?

She could have tried harder to line-up that first paying customer. To be fair, she acquired the plane late in the year, which allowed her little time to react.

Absent revenues, marketing became a critical factor. The Court wanted more than a hopeful conversation or Facebook photo of her next to her new plane. 

I am thinking she should have set-up a business website - including history, services, photos - for the airplane business. Perhaps that, with her business plan, would have been enough.

Suboptimal Tax Laws Are Still Valid Tax Laws

I have a family member who has accepted in position in, and will be moving to, Chicago. You can bet that we have discussed the compensation package, and I am to review the deferred compensation package when provided. His is a “C suite” position, so deferred compensation means more than just the 401(k) with which you and I are familiar.

I find myself reviewing a Federal Court of Claims decision on an airline pilot that got on the wrong side of FICA taxation of deferred compensation.

His name is Louis Balestra, and he was a pilot with United Airlines from 1979 until his retirement in 2004. There may have been no tax case, except that United Airlines filed for bankruptcy in 2002.

Let’s talk about the “general timing rule” for FICA taxation. It is easy: you pay FICA when you are paid. No pay, no tax. No fair to not cash your paycheck!

We also have deferred compensation, more specifically “nonqualified” deferred compensation, which means a retirement plan which deviates, either a little or a lot, from somewhat rigid IRS requirements in order to be “qualified.” There is then a ‘special timing rule” (I am not making this up, I swear), the purpose of which is to speed-up when the income is taxed for FICA. The Code section is 3121(v)(2):

   3121(v)(2) TREATMENT OF CERTAIN NONQUALIFIED DEFERRED COMPENSATION PLANS.—

3121(v)(2)(A) IN GENERAL.— Any amount deferred under a nonqualified deferred compensation plan shall be taken into account for purposes of this chapter as of the later of—

3121(v)(2)(A)(i)   when the services are performed, or

3121(v)(2)(A)(ii)   when there is no substantial risk of forfeiture of the rights to such amount.

We have a new shiny: “substantial risk of forfeiture.” If the company funds your benefit, for example, chances are that your FICA tax will be accelerated, perhaps many years before you actually receive any money.

Let’s work through this with an extremely simplified example. The company agrees to pay you $100,000 five years from now. Let’s also posit that you clear the second requirement of “no substantial risk of forfeiture.” Congratulations, you have FICA tax. Right now.

Being a tax accountant by training if not by temperament, I have to ask the question: how do I calculate the income to be taxed? Is it $100,000? That doesn’t make sense, as you will receive the money five years from now. A hundred grand then is not the same as a hundred grand now, if for no other reason than you could put it n a CD (if you received it now) and have more than a hundred grand five years hence. Is it the present value of the $100,000, discounted at some interest rate and for five years? That makes more sense, and that is the guidance provided by the Regulations.

Remember what I said about United Airlines filing for bankruptcy in 2002, two years before Balestra retired? Shouldn’t we take into consideration that United Airlines might not pay everything to which Balestra is entitled?

Makes sense to me. For example, Balestra paid FICA on approximately $289,000 of deferred compensation. United actually paid him approximately $63,000. He had paid FICA on that entire $289,000, and he wanted some of it back.

CLARIFICATION: It would be more correct to say that he paid the Medicare portion of FICA, as the social security side only applies up to an income limit.  Let’s continue. We are on a roll.

Balestra sued.  

And the Court was looking at the Shakespearean prose of Reg 31.3121(v)(2)-1(c):

(ii) Present value defined.— For purposes of this section, present value means the value as of a specified date of an amount or series of amounts due thereafter, where each amount is multiplied by the probability that the condition or conditions on which payment of the amount is contingent will be satisfied, and is discounted according to an assumed rate of interest to reflect the time value of money. For purposes of this section, the present value must be determined as of the date the amount deferred is required to be taken into account as wages under paragraph (e) of this section using actuarial assumptions and methods that are reasonable as of that date. For this purpose, a discount for the probability that an employee will die before commencement of benefit payments is permitted, but only to the extent that benefits will be forfeited upon death. In addition, the present value cannot be discounted for the probability that payments will not be made (or will be reduced) because of the unfunded status of the plan, the risk associated with any deemed or actual investment of amounts deferred under the plan, the risk that the employer, the trustee, or another party will be unwilling or unable to pay, the possibility of future plan amendments, the possibility of a future change in the law, or similar risks or contingencies.

Balestra tried, but he could not overcome the fact that the Regulations did not include “employer bankruptcy” as a possible reason to discount the amount of income accelerated for FICA tax – or, at least, to allow some of the FICA to be refunded once the actual payments are known.

Balestra lost his case.

The Court did realize the unfairness of the law, however.

It might have been wiser to have selected as a trigger something other than there being ‘no substantial risk of forfeiture’ … and instead considered the financial solvency of the employer – or to have deferred taxation while an employer is in bankruptcy, rather than until promised benefits are ‘reasonable ascertainable.”

You think?

But these are matters for law makers, not judges – suboptimal laws are still valid tax laws.”

I know. I would be more optimistic if I had any regard for the suboptimals in Congress.

Tile 26 of the United States Code would be a good deal shorter if the unwise tax laws could be purged by the judiciary.”

You must admit, it is easy to like this Court.

Does A Flight Attendant In Hong Kong Have Foreign Income?

I am going to put you on the spot. I will give you some facts and present a tax issue for you.

Yen-Ling is a U.S. citizen. She is an expat living in Hong Kong. She works international flights for an airline, and her flights include

• Hong Kong to/from San Francisco
• Hong Kong to/from Chicago
• Hong Kong to/from Ho Chi Minh City
• San Francisco to/from Nagoya

 What tax issues do you see?

·        Hong Kong is a red herring. As a U.S. citizen, she has to pay income taxes on her worldwide income.

·       She however does get some tax relief from the double taxation this would otherwise entail. She gets to offset her Hong Kong taxes against her otherwise payable U.S. income taxes. This is the “foreign tax credit.”

 You are doing well. Anything else?

·        I recall a “foreign income” exclusion in the tax code. I am a bit fuzzy on it, though.

Good catch. A U.S. citizen who both lives and works overseas can exclude a certain amount of his/her salary from U.S. tax. This amount is not chump-change. For 2013, for example, the maximum foreign income exclusion is $97,600.

Is all of her income foreign? She does live in Hong Kong.

·       Wait, she comes into and out of the U.S. on a regular basis. Some of her income has to be U.S. source.

You are right. How to do you propose to allocate it?

·        Hopefully the airline sent her something – maybe a breakdown of her flight and service hours.

Let’s say they do and it looks something like this:

• Hours in U.S.
• Hours in Vietnam
• Hours in Japan
• Hours in Hong Kong
• Hours in international air space

 Her total hours are 1,960 hours. How do you propose to calculate this?

 ·        I propose to divide her hours in the U.S. into 1,960 total hours.

Seems reasonable. But ...

... you would be wrong. Not surprisingly, there has been litigation on this.

The Code defines "foreign earned income” as “the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country.”

·        So? She did not earn it within the U.S., so how can it be anything other than “foreign?”

Take a look at the wording in the following Regulation:

• The term ‘foreign country’ when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.”

Did you pick up on the tax hook?

 ·        You mean the word “sovereignty?”

That’s it. Under whose sovereignty is international airspace?

·        No one’s. That is why it is international.

Is her time in international airspace considered time in a “foreign country?”

·        That is ridiculous. According to this reasoning, an American on the moon would have all his/her income considered U.S. source.

You are right that this is ridiculous, but an American living (and working) on the moon would have U.S. source income. He/she would not have a foreign income exclusion, as he/she would not have foreign income.

·        Who dreamed this up?

To some extent, it is an unfortunate by-product of the U.S. worldwide tax system. It borders on the intellectually incoherent, which is why virtually all other advanced nations eschew it in favor of a territorial tax system.

·        How did it turn out for the flight attendant?

She got hosed. You can read about it at Rogers v Commissioner.

·        I could but I won’t.