Blade’s Offer In Compromise

I am enough of a nerd to say that I enjoyed the Blade movies. I am a fan of Wesley Snipes, who played the half-vampire vampire hunter in the series.

You may recall that he got into big-time tax trouble several years ago. He bought into tax protestor arguments, such as being an ambassador from the planet Naboo or some similar nonsense. He spent three years in prison.

When he came out of prison the IRS wanted over $23 million in taxes, penalties and interest.

He went to a Collections Due Process hearing. The purpose of a CDP is to tamp-down IRS aggressiveness in separating you from your money. The CDP has limited range, but sometimes that range makes all the difference.

So he goes and requests collection alternatives.

Perfect. Exactly what a CDP is designed to do.

He proposes an installment agreement.

There are flavors of these, and one of the flavors is called a “partial pay.” For a partial, you have to convince the IRS that you are unable to fully pay your taxes over the period the IRS can collect from you. You almost have to provide photos of Bigfoot to persuade the IRS to go along.

Alternatively, he proposes an offer in compromise (OIC).

In some cases, the difference between a partial pay and an OIC can be slight, except for maybe at the edges. For example, enter a partial pay and the IRS may request payment adjustment if your income goes up. That is a risk you do not have with an OIC.

Right there you can anticipate that an OIC is harder to obtain than a partial pay.

And an OIC for an actor who has made millions from movies is going to be harder still.

OICs are the “pennies on the dollar” tripe you hear on radio or late-night commercials. Those “pennies” OICs are few and far between, and usually involve some or all of the following factors:

·      Someone was injured and will never work again

·      Someone has retired and will never work again

·      Someone owns next to nothing

·      Someone owes the IRS money   

The key theme here is that someone is broke, and there is little likelihood that condition will ever change.

Folks, that is not tax planning. That is bad luck in life, very poor life choices, or both.

Wesley Snipes put in an OIC of $842,061.

Out of $25 million plus.

Heck, even I don’t believe him.

Let’s begin with personal financials. You know the IRS is going to check him out, especially with such a lowball offer.

·      Snipes owns real estate and other assets through a series of related companies.

OK. The IRS is going to have to look at this.

·      Snipes argued that some of this real estate had been sold or went missing.

OK. The IRS is going to have to look at this.

·      Snipes argued that his financial advisor had “diverted” his assets and money without his knowledge or consent.

OK. The IRS is going to have to look at this.

·      Snipes requested that his tax liability be “transferred” to his advisor, as the advisor had conveniently “transferred” Snipe’s assets to himself. This would require an investigation, of course, and perhaps the IRS could place his account in “currently not collectible” status during the investigation.

I suspect there is or will be a lawsuit here. I would have hired an attorney and filed papers already.

The problem is that Appeals (where Snipes was at the moment) is not built for this. Snipes is requesting an audit, and audits are done by Examination. Given what was alleged, this matter could even go to the Criminal Division of the IRS. While Appeals can review the work of the field (Examination) division, they cannot perform the field investigation themselves.

·      He has one more argument: economic hardship.

Problem: the normal indicia of economic hardship include illness, disability, or exhaustion of income or assets providing for oneself or dependents. These do not apply in his case.

That leaves an argument that he is unable to borrow against assets, and the forced sale of said assets would leave him unable to meet basic expenses.

This argument may have traction. He is – after all – asserting that assets have disappeared and he doesn’t know when or where.

But he failed to provide enough financial information to allow the IRS to evaluate the matter. The IRS and the Court kept circling on this point. Could it be that he truly could not sherlock what happened to his money?

However, not providing information in an OIC tends to be fatal.

Still, the IRS was moved. They agreed to reduce the settlement to $9,581,027.

Snipes’ team said: No. It is $842,061 or nothing.

The Court said: Then nothing it is.

I suspect the most interesting part of the story is the part that was not provided: what happened to the real estate and other money?

I also wonder if there is a certain schadenfreude here.

Tax protestors sometimes use unnecessarily complicated structures (trusts, for example) to distance, obscure and possibly hide the ultimate control of money or assets. A protestor would not own real estate directly, for example. Rather an entity would own the real estate and the protestor would control the entity. Or there would be an intermediate entity owned by yet another entity controlled by the protestor.

What if the protestor goes to prison? The protestor might then cede a certain amount of authority over the entity/entities to someone – like an advisor - while incarcerated.

What happens if that advisor does not have the protestor’s best interest at heart?

Might sound a lot like what we read here.

Nails, REITs And Coffins

I am reading an article that includes the following sentence:

If these deals become widespread, they’d be another nail in the coffin of the corporate income tax.”

That sounds ominous.

It turns out that the author is writing about real estate investment trusts, more commonly known as REITs (pronounced “reets”).

I do not work with REITs. The last time I came near one was around 2000, and that was in a limited context. My background is entrepreneurial wealth and is unlikely to include REIT practice – unless said wealth is selling its real estate to said REIT.    

REITs have become popular as an investment alternative in an era of low interest rates, as they are required to pay dividends. Well, to be more accurate, they are required IF they want to remain REITS.

REITS are corporations, but they have access to a unique Code section – Section 857. Qualify and the corporation has an additional deduction not available to you or me – it can deduct dividends paid its shareholders from taxable income.

This is a big deal.

Regular corporations cannot do this. Say you and I own a corporation and it makes a million dollars. We want the money. How do we get it out of the corporation? We have the corporation pay us a million-dollar dividend, of course.

Let’s walk through the tax tao of this.

The corporation cannot deduct the dividend. This means it has to pay tax first. Let’s say the state tax is $60,000, which the corporation can deduct. It will then pay $320,000 in federal tax, leaving $620,000 it can pay us.

In a rational world, we would not have to pay tax again on the $620,000, as it has already been taxed.

That is not our world. The IRS looks around and say “the two are you are not the corporation, so we will tax you again.” The fact that you and I really are the corporation – and that the corporation would not exist except for you and me – is just a Jedi mind trick.

You and I are taxed again on the $620,000. Depending upon, we are likely to bump from the 15% dividend rate to the 20% rate, then on top of it we will also be subject to the 3.8% “net investment income” surtax. The state is going to want its share, which should be another 6% or so.

Odds are we have parted with another 29.8% (20% plus 3.8% plus 6%), which would be approximately $185,000. We now have $435,000 between us. Not a bad chunk of change, but the winner in this picture is the government.

Think how sweet it would be if we could deduct the million dollars. The corporation would not have any taxable income (because we paid it out in full as dividends). Yes, you and I would be taxable at 29.8%, but that is a whole lot better than a moment ago. We just saved ourselves over $260,000.

Congress did not like this. This is referred to as “erosion” of the corporate income tax base and is the issue our author was lamenting. Yes, you and I keeping our money is being decried as “erosion.” Words are funny like that.

Back to our topic.

Real estate has to represent at least 75% of REIT assets. In a similar vein, rental income must comprise at least 75% of REIT income. Get too cute or aggressive and you will lose REIT status – and with it that sweet dividends-paid deduction. For years and years these entities were stuffed with shopping malls, apartments and office complexes. They were boring.

Someone had to push the envelope. Maybe it was a tax planner pitching the next great idea. Maybe it was a corporate raider looking to make his or her next billion dollars. All one has to do is redefine “real estate” to include things that are not – you know – real estate.

For example, can you lease the rooftop of an office building and consider it real estate? What about pipelines, phone lines, billboards, data centers, boat slips?

In recent years the IRS said all were real estate.

Something that started as a real estate equivalent to mutual funds was getting out of hand. Pretty soon a Kardashian reality TV show was going to qualify as real estate and get stuffed into a REIT.

In the “Protecting Americans from Tax Hikes Act of 2015,” Congress put a chill on future REIT deals.

To a tax nerd, getting assets out of a corporation into another entity (say a REIT) is referred to as a “divisive.” These transactions take place under Section 355, and - if properly structured - result in no immediate taxation.

Let’s tweak Section 355 and change that no-immediate-taxation thing:

* Unless both (or neither) the distributing and the distributed are themselves REITs, the divisive will be taxable.

* If neither are REITS, then neither can elect REIT status for 10 years.

This tweak is intended to be a time-out, giving the IRS time. It is, frankly, an issue the IRS brought upon itself The IRS has issued multiple private letter rulings that seem to confound “immoveable” with “real estate.” The technical problem is that there are multiple Sections in the tax Code - Sections 168, 263A, 1031, and 1250 for example – that affect real estate. Each may be addressing different issues, and grafting definitions from one Section onto another can result in unintended consequences.

Again we have the great circle of taxation. Somebody stretches a Code section to the point of snapping. Eventually Congress pays attention and changes the law. There will be another Code section to start the process again. There always is.

Why Does The IRS Want A Disabled Veteran To Work Faster?

Sometimes I read a tax case and ask myself “why did the IRS chase this?”

Lewis is one of those cases.

Let’s explain the context to understand what the IRS was after.

It will soon be three decades that Congress gave us the “passive activity” (PAL) rules. A PAL is a trade or business that you do not sufficiently participate in – that is, you are “passive” in the business. This means more when you have losses from the activity, as income is going to be taxed in any event. It was Congress’ intention to take the legs out from the tax shelters, and with PALs they have been largely successful.

The PAL rules got off to a rocky start. One of the early problems was Congress’ decision to classify real estate activities as passive activities. Now, that concept may make sense if one own a duplex a few streets over, but it doesn’t work so well if one is a home builder or property manager.

Say, for example, that a developer builds a hundred condo units. The real estate market reverses, and he/she cannot sell them as quickly as planned. The developer rents the units, waiting for the market to improve.

Most of us would see one activity. Congress saw two, as the rental had to be segregated. There was no harm if both were profitable. There was harm if only the development was profitable, however, as the rental loss would just hang in space until there was rental income to absorb it.

That was the point of the passive activity rules – to disallow the use of passive losses against nonpassive income.

Real estate professionals screamed about the unfairness of the law as it applied to their industry.

And Congress changed the law by making an exception for real estate people who:

(1) Work more than 750 hours during the year in real estate, and

(2) More than one-half of all hours worked were in real estate.

If you meet both of the above tests, you can deduct losses from your real estate activities to your heart’s content.

Bill Lewis is a Vietnam veteran. He took injuries as a Marine, retaining 50 percent use of his right arm and 70 percent of his feet, requiring him to wear orthopedic shoes. The military gave him a disability pension. He now needs knee surgery, and he has difficulty seeing. He is married.

He and his wife own a triplex next door to their residence. The property also has a washhouse, although I am uncertain what a washhouse is. There are six 64-gallon recycling bins, and several large walnut trees. Mr. Lewis does not ask anyone to take care of his property. He takes care of it himself.

1.  Every morning he walks around and inspects for trash, as they are located very close to a homeless area.  This takes him about a half hour daily.
2. Also on Mondays he scrubs down the washhouse. That requires him to haul water and takes him about three hours. 
3. On Tuesdays and Thursdays he landscapes, cleans the outside of the buildings and the garbage cans and rakes the yard. This takes about two hours on each day.
4. Depending on the season, he has more raking to do, as he has walnut trees on the property.
5. On Wednesdays he takes the recycling bins out to the curb. One by one, as he has mobility issues.
6. On Thursdays he returns the recycling bins. Same mobility issues.
7. He prefers to do repairs himself. If he needs outside help, he schedules and meets with that person. 
8. He follows a set routine, rarely if ever taking a vacation.

The Lewis’ claimed rental losses for 2010 and 2011. The IRS disallowed the losses and wanted almost $11,000 in taxes in return. The IRS said this was the classic passive activity.

The IRS should have also taken candy from a child and kicked a dog and made this a trifecta of bad choices.

Mr. Lewis was disabled. He did not have a job. As a consequence, he did not have to worry about spending more than half of his work hours in real estate. For him, all of his work hours were in real estate.

But Mr. Lewis ran into two issues:

(1)  He did not keep a journal, log or record of his activities and hours; and

(2)  The IRS did not believe it could possibly take more than 750 hours to do what he did.

Issue (1) is classic IRS. I have run into it myself in practice. The IRS wants contemporaneous records, and few people keep time sheets for their real estate activities. The IRS then jumps on after-the-fact records as “self-serving.” The IRS has been aided by people who truly could not have spent the hours they claimed (because, for example, they have a full-time job) as well as repetitively fabulist time records, and the courts now routinely side with the IRS on this issue.

But not this time. The judge was persuaded by the Lewis’ testimony and the few records they could provide. This was a rare win for the taxpayer.

The IRS had a second argument though: it should not have taken as long as it took Mr. Lewis to perform the tasks described.

The judge dismissed this point curtly:

Petitioner husband and petitioner wife testified credibly that because of petitioner husband’s disabilities all of the activities took him significantly longer than might ordinarily be expected.”

The Lewis’ won and the IRS lost.

Good.

These were very unique facts, though. Unless one truly works in the real estate industry, many if not most are going to lose when the IRS presses on contemporaneous records for the 750 hours. Mr. Lewis was a sympathetic party, and the judge clearly gravitated to his side.

Which raises the question: why did the IRS pursue this? They were anything but sympathetic chasing a disabled veteran for taking too long while performing his landlord responsibilities.

Yes, I am sympathetic to Mr. Lewis too.

Distinguishing Capital Gains From Ordinary Income

The holy grail of tax planning is to get to a zero tax rate. That is a rare species. I have seen only one repeatable fact pattern in the last few years leading to a zero tax rate, and that pattern involved not making much money. You can guess that there isn’t much demand for a tax strategy that begins with “you cannot make a lot of money….”

The next best plan is capital gains. There is a difference in tax rates between ordinary income (up to 39.6%) and capital gains (up to 20%). A tax geek could muddy the water by including phase-outs (such as itemized deductions or personal exemptions), the 15% capital gains rate (for incomes below $457,600 if you are married) or the net investment income tax (3.8%), but let’s limit our discussion just to the 20% versus 39.6% tax rates. You can bet that a lot of tax alchemy goes into creating capital gains at the expense of ordinary income.

The tax literature is littered with cases involving the sale of land and capital gains. If you or I sell a piece of raw land, it is almost incontrovertibly a capital gain. Let’s say that you are a developer, however, and make your living selling land. The answer changes, as land is inventory for you, the same as that flat screen TV is inventory for Best Buy.

Let’s say that I see you doing well, and you motivate me to devote less energy to tax practice and more to real estate. At what point do I become a developer like you: after my second sale, after my first million dollars, or is it something else?

The tax Code comes in with Section 1221(a), which defines a capital asset by exclusion: every asset is a capital asset unless the Code says otherwise.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include—

(1)  stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business;

Let’s take Section 1221(a)(1) out for a spin, shall we? Let’s talk about Long, and you tell me whether we have a capital asset or not.

Philip Long lives in Florida, which immediately strikes me as a good idea as we go into winter here. From 1994 to 2006 he operated a sole proprietorship by the name of Las Olas Tower Company (LOTC). Long had a drive and desire to build a high-rise condominium, which he was going to call Las Olas Tower.

He is going to build a condo, make millions and sit on a beach.

Problem: he doesn’t own the land on which to put the condo. Solution: He has to buy the land.

He finds someone with land, and that someone is Las Olas Riverside Hotel (LORH). LORC and LORH are not the same people, by the way, although “Las Olas” seems a popular name down there. Long enters into an agreement to buy land owned by LORH.

Long steps up his involvement: he is reviewing designs with an architect, obtaining government permits and approval, distributing promotional materials, meeting with potential customers. The ground hasn’t even been cleared or graded and he has twenty percent of the condo units under contract. Long is working it.

LORH gets cold feet and decides not to sell the land.

Yipes! Considering that Long needs to land on which to erect the condo, this presents an issue. He does the only thing he can do: he sues for specific performance. He needs that land.

He is also running out of cash. A friend of his lends money to another company owned by Long to keep this thing afloat. Long is juggling. Who knows how much longer Long can keep the balls in the air?

In November, 2005 Long wins his case. The Court gives LORH 326 days to comply with the sales agreement.

But this has taken its toll on Long. He wants out. Let someone finish the lawsuit, buy the land, erect the condo, make the sales. Long has had enough. He meets someone who takes this thing off his hands for $5,750,000. He sells what he has, mess and all. 

    QUESTION: Is this ordinary or capital gain income?

The difference means approximately $1.4 million in tax, so give it some thought.

The closer Long gets to being a developer the closer he gets to a maximum tax rate. The Courts have looked at the Winthrop case, which provides factors for divining someone’s primary purpose for holding real property. The factors include:

1. The purpose for acquisition of property
2. The extent of developing the property            
3. The extent of the taxpayer’s efforts to sell

The Tax Court looked and saw that Long had a history of developing land, had hired an architect, obtained permits and government approvals and had even gotten sales contracts on approximately 20% of the to-be-built condo units. A developer has ordinary income. Long was a developer. Long had ordinary income.

Is this the answer you expected?

It wasn’t the answer Long expected. He appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

What were the grounds for appeal?

Think about Long’s story. There is no denying that a developer subdivides, improves and sells real estate. Long was missing a crucial ingredient however: he did not have any real estate to sell. All he had was a contract to buy, which is not the same thing. In fact, when he cashed out he still did not have real estate. He had won a case ordering someone to sell real estate, but the sale had not yet occurred.

The IRS did not see it that way. As far as they were concerned, Long had found a pot of gold, and that gold was ordinary income under the assignment of income doctrine. That doctrine says that you cannot sell a right to money (think a lottery winning, for example) and convert ordinary income to capital gains. You cannot sell your winning lottery ticket and get capital gains, because if you had just collected the lottery winnings you would have had ordinary income. All you did was “assign” that ordinary income to someone else.

The problem with the IRS point of view is that someone still had to buy the land, finish the permit process, clear and grade, erect a building, form a condo association, market the condos, sell individual units and so on. Long wasn’t going to do it. There was the potential there to make money, but the money truck had not yet backed into Long’s loading dock. Long was not selling profit had had already earned, because nothing had yet been “earned.”

Long won his day in Appeals Court.

He had ordinary income in Tax Court and then he had capital gains in Appeals Court.

Even the pros can have a hard time telling the difference sometimes.