Jurate Antioco's Nightmare On IRS Street

Ms. Jurate Antioco lived in Martha’s Vineyard, where she owned a bed and breakfast with her husband. The B&B was their home. In 2006 they divorced (after 27 years) and sold the B&B for almost $2 million. They used some of the money to pay off marital debt, but over $1 million went to her after she was unable to finish a Section 1031 exchange within the permitted time.

After approximately 1 year, she took the money and borrowed another $950,000 to buy a multifamily in San Francisco. She moved into one unit, moved her 90-something-year-old mother into another and rented the remaining three units as a source of income.

Ms. Antioco made a mistake concerning her taxes, though. She thought that – perhaps because the B&B had been her residence – that she would not owe any taxes. She fell behind in filing her 2006 taxes but did better with 2007. Her accountant informed her that she owed taxes on the sale for 2006. She was unprepared for this, as she had put almost all her money in the multifamily. She filed the tax returns, though.

The IRS of course assessed tax, interest and penalties. It is what they do.

In April, 2009 the IRS sends her a notice of intent to levy. Ms. Antioco has all her money tied up in the multifamily, so she filed for a collection due process (CDP) hearing.  She proposed paying $1,000 per month until she could work out a loan. She explained that her mom was having health issues, she was moving into caregiver mode, and anything more than $1,000 at the moment would cause economic hardship. As a show of good faith, she started paying $1,000 a month.

She contacted other lenders about a loan, but she soon learned that she had a problem. Even though she had considerable equity in the property, her current lender had included a nuclear option in the mortgage giving them the right to foreclose if another lien was put on the building

OBSERVATION: There is a very good reason to request a CDP, as the IRS will routinely file a lien to secure its debt. This could have been very bad for Ms. Antioco.

She goes back to the primary lender, and they tell her that they are not interested in loaning her any more money.

She has a problem.

The IRS sends her paperwork (Form 433-A) and schedules a hearing for September, 2009. The IRS tells her that she simply has to try to borrow before they will consider an installment plan. If she cannot, then proof of that must also be submitted.

She finds another lender and a better interest rate. The new lender will refinance but not lend any new money. Still, a lower payment frees-up cash, so Ms. Antioco decides to refinance. The new lender wants her to put her mom on the deed, which she does by granting her mother a joint tenancy in the property.

She sends her financial information (the Form 433-A), along with supporting bank documentation and a copy of her most recent tax return, to the IRS. She hears nothing.

In November, 2009 she received a notice from the IRS stating that they were sustaining the levy. The notice stated that she had requested a payment plan, but she had failed to provide additional financial information. In addition the IRS completely blew off her economic hardship argument.

Ms. Antioco appealed to the Tax Court. She pointed out that she was never asked for additional financial information, and –by the way – what happened to her economic hardship request?

And then something amazing happened: the IRS pulled the case, admitting to the Court that the Appeals officer had never requested additional financial information and had in fact abused her discretion.

The Court sent the matter back to IRS Appeals, hoping that the system would work better this time.

Uh, sure.

Enter Alan Owyang. The first thing he did was call Ms. Antioco to schedule a face-to-face meeting and review detailed questions. . Ms. Antioco explained that she would call back later that day, as she wanted to collect her documents to help her with the detailed questions. Owyang didn’t wait, and he kept calling her back that same day. At one point her accused her of being “uncooperative’ and that she “put your money where your mouth is.” He added that he had been a witness in her case.

Ms. Antioco was so rattled that she hired an attorney. Sounds like a great idea to me.

Mr. Owyang sent her a letter a few days later, saying that he thought Ms. Antioco had added her mother to the deed to defraud the government and that he also thought she could pay her taxes but “simply chose not to do so.” He asked for all kinds of additional paperwork, but not curiously no new financial information – the very reason the Tax Court sent the matter back to IRS Appeals. 

Her attorney submitted a bundle of information and requested another CDP hearing for April, 2011. He explained to Mr. Owyang that Ms. Antioco’s mother was declining and would (likely) not survive a sale and move from the apartment building. All Ms. Antioco wanted was time – to allow her mom to pass away or to finally get a new loan – after which she would able to pay the balance of the tax. She was willing to pay under a short-term installment plan until then.

Mr. Owyang told the attorney that he would not grant an installment agreement because Ms. Antioco had chosen to transfer the equity in the apartment building by adding her mother to the deed. He could not see another reason for it.

·        Even though he had a letter from the lender stating it wasn’t willing to lend any more money. And to include her mom on the deed if she wanted to refinance.

He refused to consider whether there was any “hardship.”

·        One of the reasons it went back to the IRS to begin with.

He also thought that all the talk about taking care of a 90-something-year-old mom was a “diversionary argument” that he “would not consider.”

·        I am stunned.

Mr. Owyang also contacted the IRS Compliance Division. He said that the government’s interest was in “jeopardy,” and he recommended that the IRS file a manual lien. There were problems with the filing, and Mr. Owyang went out of his way to follow up personally.

In May, 2011 Mr. Owyang filed a supplemental notice of determination, concluding that Ms. Antioco had “fraudulently” transferred the building to her mother. He went all Sherlock Holmes explaining how he had deduced that Ms. Antioco had committed fraud, concealed the transfer, became insolvent because of it and was left without any assets to pay the government. It was his judgement that she could have gotten a loan if she really wanted one, and that Ms. Antioco was a “won’t pay taxpayer” who was using her ailing mother as an “emotional diversion.”

This guy is a few clowns short of a circus.

They are back in Tax Court. The IRS this time sees nothing wrong with Mr. Owyang's behavior. They did however acknowledge that Mr. Owyang never ran the numbers to see if Ms. Antioco was insolvent, and that his determination of fraud was … “flawed.”

But Mr. Owyang had not abused his discretion. No sir!! Not a smidgeon.

The IRS wanted the Court to dismiss the case.

The Court instead heard the case.

The Court went through the steps, noting that the Commissioner can file liens to secure the collection of an assessed tax.  The IRS however must follow procedures, such as notifying the taxpayer, granting a collections appeal if the taxpayer requests one, and so on. The taxpayer had proposed a payment alternative, and the IRS never completed its analysis of her proposed payment plan. The IRS had also failed to consider her complaint of economic hardship.

The IRS did not follow procedure.

The Court then reviewed Mr. Owyang’s behaviors and assertions, refuting each in turn. The Court even pointed out that Ms. Antioco had paid down her tax debt by $88,000 by the time of trial, not exactly the conduct of someone looking to shirk and run. The Court was not even sure what Mr. Owyang’s real reason was for his determination, as his reasons were contradicted by documentation in file, not to mention changing over time.

The Court decided that Mr. Owyang had abused his discretion.

In February, 2013 the Court sent the case back to the IRS again, as the IRS never reviewed whether the $1,000 was a reasonable payment plan.

Back to the IRS. Introduce a new Appeals officer.

Ms. Antioco then filed suit against the IRS for wrongful action – that is, over the behavior of Mr. Owyang. This type of suit is very difficult to win. Ms. Antioco focused her arguments on Mr. Owyang’s abusive behavior.  The District Court determined that this behavior occurred while Mr. Owyang was “reviewing” collection action and not actually “conducting” collection, which barred liability under Section 7433.

OBSERVATION: No, he was “collecting.” What is a lien, if not a collection action?

In June 2013 the IRS finally agreed to an installment payment plan.

In July, 2014 the IRS filed suit to reduce Ms. Antioco’s liability to judgment. Reducing an assessment to judgment gives the IRS the ability to collect long after the 10-year statute of limitations.

Ms. Antioco filed a motion to dismiss.

Her reason for requesting dismissal? The tax Code itself. Code Section 6331(k)(3)(A) bars the IRS from bringing a proceeding in court while an installment agreement is in effect.

The IRS realized it got caught and last month agreed to dismiss.

And that is where we are as of this writing.

For a tax pro, the Jurate Antioco cases have been interesting, as they highlight the importance of following procedural steps when matters get testy with the IRS. From a human perspective, however, this is a study of a government agency run amok.  How often does the IRS get spanked twice by the Tax Court for abuse on the same case?

Ms. Antioco’s mom, by the way, is now 97 years old and suffering from congestive heart failure. Ms. Antioco is herself a senior citizen. May they both yet live for a very long time.

Employers - Be Careful With Medical Reimbursement Plans

I am reading a notice from the Department of Labor titled “FAQs about Affordable Care Act Implementation (Part XXII)."

This will never make it as summer reading while on a beach.

And the DOL pretty much says what many practitioners concluded last year when the IRS issued Notice 2013-54, addressing employer reimbursement arrangements and individual health insurance policies acquired on an exchange.

COMMENT: “Exchange” and “marketplace” are the same.

The government does NOT like them.

Let’s clarify what we are talking about. There used to be a very common arrangement whereby an employer would pay your health insurance, reimburse your medical expenses, or a combination of the two, with no tax to you. These plans had several names, including health reimbursement plans or Section 105 plans. The practice had been around since before I was born.

Introduce ObamaCare. Say that someone goes on the exchange and buys an individual policy. Let’s take one more step and say that someone qualifies for a government subsidy on that individual policy.

Step One: You have someone getting money (in the form of the subsidy) from the government.

Say that person’s employer has a health reimbursement plan. The plan reimburses medical expenses, including insurance, up to some dollar amount – say $2,500.

Step Two: That person submits his/her government-subsidized Obamacare policy to the employer for reimbursement, up to $2,500.

To the extent that person’s share of the policy cost was less than $2,500, that person has broken even on the deal. To the extent that his/her share was $2,500 or more, his/her share of the cost would be $2,500 less.

Step Three: The government did not like this, did not like this at all. They huffed and they puffed and they issued Notice 2013-54, which pretty much indicated that the government was not going to allow a mixture of Obamacare individual health policies and employer reimbursement plans. Many practitioners were shocked. Heck, I myself had a similar plan at one time.

But there were a select few companies who continued marketing these things. Introduce some painful and lawyerly reading of the rules, and the companies declared that “their” plan would somehow pass muster with Notice 2013-54.

If there was any legitimate question, there is none now.

Let’s review Q&A 3:

Q: A vendor markets a product to employers claiming that employers can cancel their group policies, set up a Code section 105 reimbursement plan that works with health insurance brokers or agents to help employees select individual insurance policies, and allow eligible employees to access the premium tax credits for marketplace coverage. Is this permissible?

A: No. … the arrangements described in this Q3 are themselves group health plans and, therefore, employees participating in such arrangements are ineligible for premium tax credits….

Second, as explained in …, such arrangements are subject to the market reform provisions of the Affordable Care Act …. Such employer health care arrangements cannot be integrated with individual market policies to satisfy the market reforms, and, therefore, will violate …., which can trigger penalties such as excise taxes under section 4980D of the Code.

There are extremely limited exceptions, such as a one-person employer, but the broad broom has swept. The government is not going to allow a tax-free employer reimbursement for an individual policy acquired on an exchange.

So what if the employer included the reimbursement on the employee’s W-2? It would not be tax-free then, by definition. My previous understanding was that an employer could reimburse the individual policy, as long as the reimbursement was included on the employee’s W-2.

COMMENT: Another way to say it is that the government doesn’t care, as long as it gets its tax.

Let’s take a look at Q&A 1:

Q: My employer offers cash to reimburse the purchase of an individual market policy. Does this arrangement comply with the market reforms?

A: No. If the employer uses an arrangement that provides cash reimbursement for the purchase of an individual market policy, the employer’s payment arrangement is part of a plan, fund, or other arrangement established or maintained for the purpose of providing medical care to employees, without regard to whether the employer treats the money as pre-tax or post-tax to the employee.

Huh? Wait a minute here.

I interpret this to mean that an employer cannot have employees submit their insurance bills for reimbursement in lieu of other compensation. To phrase it differently, the employer must give the employee a raise (or bonus) and the employee must decide whether he/she wants to use the raise (or bonus) toward the insurance. The employee may decide to take the money and go on vacation; the employer cannot decide this for the employee.

By the way, notice that we have been speaking about individual health policies. The above discussion does not apply to group health policies acquired through SHOP, which is the exchange for businesses with less than 50 full-time employees. Those polices are group policies, not individual policies, and do not qualify for the ObamaCare subsidy. No subsidy, different rules.

The IRS Will Be Looking At Deferred Compensation Plans

The IRS recently launched a limited audit effort to gauge how well nonqualified deferred compensation plans are complying with the tax Code. My understanding is that the number of companies to be contacted will be less than 100. The IRS will use this effort to refine its audit techniques in three areas of nonqualified deferred compensation:

1. Initial election to defer compensation
2. Subsequent election to defer compensation
3. Eventual payment of said compensation

Before proceeding further, let’s define the “nonqualified” part of this term. Someone is deferring compensation. Perhaps someone (say, Tom Brady) is earning $15 million this year, but some or all of it will not be paid until some future date. It happens all the time, and the IRS has limited “preapproved” ways to do so. The classic way is stock options, for example.

Deviate in any way from the IRS-preapproved road, however, and the plan is referred to as “nonqualified.” I use nonqualifieds on a common basis, as they allow more flexibility in their planning and implementation than qualifieds. There is no connation of good or bad to being “nonqualified.”

The IRS is looking at Section 409A, a particularly nasty Code section.

What was the purpose of Section 409A? Let’s go back to 2000 and 2001. We are now talking about Enron, an energy and commodities company headquartered in Houston and one of the most scandalous business frauds of all time. Enron executives pushed their way to the front of the line by accelerating the payout of their deferred compensation before the company went under. You may recall that the average employees were blocked-out of their 401(k)s, with the result that they saw their retirement dwindle if not evaporate while company fat cats, like Kenneth Lay and Jeffrey Skilling,  walked away with wheel barrels full of cash.

How did it evaporate? There were two primary drivers:

(1)  Enron made its 401(k) matching contribution with company stock. Then it put in a lockdown, preventing employees from selling that stock until age 50.

(2)  Enron decided to transfer the administration of its 401(k). Unfortunately, this occurred during the period the stock collapsed, and employees were preventing from selling their stock even if they could and wanted to.

The truth of the matter is that many companies, not just Enron, use their own stock to fund a 401(k). For example, Coca Cola employees keep more than 80% of their 401(k) assets in Coca Cola stock. At Proctor & Gamble, the percentage is over 90%.

So what we have is an issue of corporate 401(k) matching, as well as an issue of the interregnum between plan administrators. That was not sufficient for Congress, which loves nothing more than a good scandal (unless it is their own, of course). In response, Congress passed Sarbanes-Oxley in 2002. It then passed the American Jobs Creation Act – containing Section 409A – in 2004.

Congress was after deferred compensation.  

Section 409A starts off easy enough: it applies to any “plan” that provides for the “deferral of compensation” to “service providers.” A “plan” does not need to be reduced to writing, and “”service providers” can included independent contractors as well as employees. “Deferral” means any payment (to which a service provider has a legally binding right) that may be received in a future tax year.

            STEP ONE: Carpet bomb. Look for survivors later.

The IRS had to start excluding something, otherwise this thing was going to dragnet everything- think accrued sick leave or accrued vacation pay - into its wake. Remember: any compensation not paid IMMEDIATELY could potentially detonate this tax trap.

It didn’t matter how much money you made, either. This thing was not limited to the big wigs. Section 409A swept up the small and large alike.

How ridiculous does this go? A number of years ago the IRS decided that schoolteachers were violating Section 409A by deferring their salary over 12 months rather than being paid over the 9 months comprising a school year. Let that sink in: the IRS felt driven to protect Americans from the rapaciousness of schoolteachers wanting to budget their salary over 12 months.

NOTE: The IRS received so much bad press that it was forced to reverse its position. That was fine, but a more cogent question was whether the law was so deeply flawed that its logical progression inevitably led to absurd results.

Therefore, the IRS gave us a few exceptions, including:

·       “Short term deferrals”

o   This means being paid by March 15 of the following year

·       Qualified plans, which means pension and profit-sharing plans, including your 401(k)

o   Obvious

·       Certain welfare plans, such as vacation and sick leave plans

o   Obvious

·       Grants of incentive stock options (ISOs) and employee stock purchase plans (ESPPs)

o   Have their own rules

·       Options to buy the stock of the service recipient, but only if the exercise price is not less than the market value of the stock on the date of grant

o   This means that – if you work at P&G and can buy P&G stock through a plan, you had better pay full retail price. If P&G gives you a discount – say you buy for 90 cents on the dollar – the IRS sees this as a “feature for the deferral of compensation.”

What happens if you are pulled into this thing?

·       The plan better be in writing

·       You better make a timely election to defer

·       Distributions to you may only be made upon occurrence of six IRS-approved events

·        You better not be able to accelerate your deferred benefits

What is a timely election? It is not what you may think. Timely in this context means “before you earn it.” For example, if your 2014 bonus is payable in 2015, you had better have your election in place in 2013.

What if you want to make a change to an existing deferral?

·       The payment must be deferred for at least another five years

o   So if you were to start in 2017, you can now start no earlier than 2022

·       And you better make this change at least 12 months before the payment was scheduled to be paid

What do you have to do to get to your money?

·       Death

·       Disability

Good grief! What else have you got?

·       Separation from service

This means you have to be fired. 

·       Change in control

This means that there is a change in ownership or control of the company. I suppose you could sell the company AND get yourself fired, just to be certain.

·       Unforeseen emergency

Think illness or accident or property loss. Even then, you have to show that expenses could not otherwise be met by insurance or your liquidation of other assets. Goes without saying that amount of distribution is limited to the amount needed for the emergency, plus taxes.

·       Date certain or fixed schedule

Finally, here is the heart of the matter. The IRS wants you to select when the deferred monies are to be paid and how (lump sum, series of payments) and then stick to it. It wants you to decide this way ahead of time, and then severely penalize you if later life events cause you to change in your mind.

What happens if you botch it?  Well, Section 409A will kick-in. 

·       There is tax on the distribution

·       There is interest (called a “stinger”) equal to the regular underpayment rate plus 1%

·       There is a 20% penalty

What if you take a distribution early? Bam – you have tax, interest and penalty.

What if you do not do anything wrong, but the company flubs the paperwork? Bam – you have tax, interest and penalty.

Can you say lawsuit?

That 20% penalty is not calculated as you would expect, either. A reasonable person would anticipate the penalty to be 20% of the tax, or possibly 20% of the tax plus the stinger. It is not, however. The penalty is 20% of the deferred balance, whether received by you or not. 

            STEP TWO: Bayonet the survivors.

What if you are in several plans simultaneously and one goes south? Does one plan contaminate the other? 

Of course it does.

STEP THREE: Repeat steps one and two. 

So what did Congress really accomplish with Section 409A?

·       Inability to distinguish publicly-traded from privately-owned

I scratch my head why Congress thinks that my auto mechanic down the street can get himself in the same trouble as a Humana or a General Electric.

Publicly-traded stock is almost like cash. These companies can buy other companies with it. They can pay employees with it. They can fund retirement plans with it. They can … well, they can play Enron with it.  

A privately-owned company however cannot.  Privately-owned companies are playing with their own money. Even the most reckless take a pause when reaching into their own wallet. A publicly-traded executive is closer to a Washington politician than any of the business owners I am likely to represent.

·       Crippling tax bombs for the unadvised

Change your deferral payment date 363 days – rather than 366 - before scheduled payout and risk tax annihilation. 

Does Congress expect that every businessperson can keep a tax attorney on retainer?

·       Yet another tax “industry”

There are advisors out there specializing in Section 409A. There has to be. You could endanger a large company by implementing a faulty plan. 

However, this is not quite the same contribution to the economy as Steve Jobs introducing the iPhone, is it?   

·       Insinuation into routine business transactions

We have a client who recently hired a business development manager. Their intention is to grow the company for 7 or so years, then sell out. It is their retirement program of sorts, I guess. The deal with the development manager includes deferred compensation, driven off year-over-year business growth and eventual sale of the company. What should be a routine tax matter now requires a Section 409A specialist, to be sure the employment package doesn’t blow up.

You want an alternative to 409A? How about this: all accelerations of executive deferred compensation (remember: Enron was only about acceleration) have to go to a shareholder vote. While we are at it, let’s lock down the executives for the same period as the rank-and-file are locked out of their 401(k)s.

And if Enron was caused by acceleration, why does 409A penalize additional deferrals? What is the point?

So the IRS is going to be looking at 50 – to 100 large companies to check on their 409A compliance. I suspect these companies will be fine, as they have the people, resources and advisors to navigate Section 409A. I would give you a different answer were the IRS to train its attention on privately-owned companies, however.