Saying Goodbye To Employee Business Expenses

Let’s talk about miscellaneous itemized deductions - likely for the last time.

These are the deductions at the bottom of the form when you itemize, and you probably itemize if you own a house and have a mortgage. Common miscellaneous deductions include investment management fees (if someone, such as Simply Money, manages your savings) and employee business expenses.

These are the “bad” expenses that are deductible only to the extent they exceed 2% of your income (AGI), because … well, because the government wants more of your money.

I am reading a case concerning a bodyguard and his employee business expenses.

His name is Rick Colbert and he retired after 30 years from the Long Beach, California Police Department. He gigged-up with Screen International Security Service Ltd (SISS) in Beverly Hills. They assigned him celebrities. He chauffeured them, deflected paparazzi, installed and monitored security devices, patrolled their estates, performed access point control and responded to distress calls.

SISS had a reimbursement policy. It did not cover everything, but it did cover a lot. Colbert did not seek any reimbursement.

He filed his 2013 tax return and reported SISS income of $25,546.

He then deducted employee business expenses of $23,965.

COMMENT: One can tell he is not in it for the money.

Those numbers are out-of-whack, and the IRS audited him. Like the IRS we know and love, they bounced all of his employee business expenses, arguing that he had not substantiated anything.

On to Tax Court they went.

The Court went through the list of expenses:

(1) $211,154 for a pistol and target practice.

Looks legit, said the Court.

(2) $86 for earbuds

To avoid annoying celebrities.

The Court grinned. OK.

(3) $1,711 for clothing and dry cleaning

Nope said the Court.

We have talked about this before. If you can wear the clothing about town and day-to-day, there is no deduction. It is just another personal expense, unless our protagonist wanted to dress up like “Macho Man" Randy Savage.

(4) $1,609 for a gym membership, weight loss pills and other stuff.

Uhh, no, said the Court, as these are the very definition of “personal, living, or family expenses.”

(5) Office in Home

This would have been nice, be he did not use space “exclusively” for the office, which is a requirement. This would hurt a send time when the Court got to his …

(6) iPad and printer

Computers are like cars when it comes to a tax deduction: you have to keep records to document business use. The reason you never hear about this requirement is because of a significant exception – if you keep the computer in an office you can skip the records requirement.

When Colbert lost his office-in-home, he picked-up a record-keeping requirement. He lost a deduction for his iPad, printer and supplies.

(7) $5,003 for his cellphone

It did not help that his internet and television were buried in the bill.

The Court disallowed his cellphone, which amazes me. Seems to me he could have gone through his bills and highlighted what was business-related.

He won some (primarily his mileage) but lost most.

And his case is now among the last of its kind.

Why?

The new tax bill does away with employee business expenses, beginning in 2018. There is NO DEDUCTION this year.

If you have significant employee business expenses, you really, really need to arrange a reimbursement plan with your employer. Your employer can deduct them, even though you cannot. Why the difference?

Because, to your employer, they are just “business expenses.” 

The Goose And Gander Tax Bill

Here is something that will catch your eye:

It is undisputed that the Debtor failed to file its tax returns for the years 2006 to 2008; and that for such failure, the Debtor incurred penalties totaling $3,662,000."

It is a bankruptcy case from Delaware.

COMMENT: You may wonder how a tax case wound up in bankruptcy court. Bankruptcy law keeps its own beat, and a bankruptcy court can have near-extraordinary powers. For example, the court can determine the amount or legality of any tax, any fine, or any penalty relating to a tax. That is what happened here. The IRS assessed a penalty, the taxpayer protested, the IRS decided it was right (surprise) and submitted the penalty as a claim to the bankruptcy court.

And I find the IRS position so extreme as to constitute bad faith. I further think the IRS should be required to reimburse the professional fees incurred defending against its reckless behavior. You miss a filing deadline by a day or two and one would think the Treasury underpinnings of the nation are in mortal throes. Have the IRS bankrupt you while enforcing some capricious tax argument, however, and you are expected to be a good sport.

I would like to someone (ahem, US Senator Paul) take up the cause. It could be called the Good For The Goose, Good For The Gander - Time For The IRS To Take Responsibility - Act. If the IRS can penalize you for unreasonable positions, then the IRS should also be subject to penalties for unreasonable conduct.  The penalty would be paid to the affected taxpayer.

Our protagonist (Refco Community Pool) formed in 2003 as a partnership. It was an investment group, and their thing was to track the S&P Managed Futures Index. To do this, they needed an investment advisor. They found one in the Cayman Islands (Sphinx Managed Futures Fund). The advisor (Sphinx) in turn used a clearinghouse (Refco, LLC) to execute trades and whatever.

OBSERVATION: Right off the bat, we have two Refco's going - "Pool" and "LLC." Set this aside, as it is not relevant to our story.

Here is what happened:

1. In 2005 Refco LLC filed for bankruptcy. This caused a run, meaning that ...
2. Sphinx yanked out $312 million. However, ...
3. Sphinx had to return $260 million as was deemed a "preference" action.
4. In 2006 Sphinx went into liquidation. As part of the process, the Court appointed two liquidators.  
5. The liquidators soon found very serious accounting issues. They in fact advised that they could not assure the accuracy of tax and accounting information provided investors.
6. Refco Pool wanted its money from Sphinx, but all they received was something called "special situation shares." They were special because no one knew what they were worth until the liquidation was complete, a process which stretched into 2013. 

The IRS noticed that Sphinx was not filing tax returns and issuing K-1s. The Sphinx liquidators explained that it would cost between $5 and $7 million to reconstruct records to even approach a tax return. The two sides came to an agreement, and Sphinx was absolved of filing K-1s from 2005 to 2007.

Let's back up a bit. Who invested in Sphinx? It was Refco Pool. The IRS next went after Refco Pool for not filing its tax return and issuing K-1s.

COMMENT: Here we have a conundrum. Refco Pool has one main asset - special situation shares (whatever that means) in a bankrupt entity with accounting problems severe enough that its liquidators advise against using any numbers. A tax return requires numbers. What to do?

           

Refco Pool argued reasonable cause for abatement of the penalty. You may as well have Refco Pool discover a new planet as get a tax return out of whatever information they could pry from Sphinx.

No, no, no, said the IRS. Refco Pool could have used selected files and summaries and reports and disbursement statements and a receipt from its last visit to Dairy Queen to reconstruct records that Sphinx should have provided but did not because the IRS said it was OK not to and then Refco Pool could have filed its own partnership tax return....

Well ... yes, Refco Pool could. However, the information was unreliable if not completely inaccurate. In fact, the matter went further than that. Even if Refco Pool could do some Harry Potter alchemy, it would not know how to separate the separate tranches, meaning it could not determine its share. And, since we are talking about it, Refco Pool would have no idea what to do with the "special" part of its share - which was certainly less than 100% but not certain to be more than 0%.

The Bankruptcy Court explained:           

As an accrual method taxpayer, the Debtor cannot recognize income until 'all the events have occurred which fix the right to receive such income and the amount thereof can be determined with reasonable accuracy.'"

One could persuasively argue that Refco Pool could not meet this threshold.

The IRS persisted that Refco Pool could have assembled numbers - however fragile - and filed a tax return had it really wanted to.

ANALYSIS: The judicial standard however is not whether Refco Pool exhausted all possible alternatives. The standard is whether Refco Pool exercised the level of care that a reasonably prudent person would under the same circumstances. 

The Court pointed out the tax risk that Refco Pool would have assumed by filing a tax return:

By knowingly filing inaccurate returns, the Debtor had a reasonable cause for concern given the specter of accuracy-related penalties it might incur ...."

The IRS could have penalized Refco Pool if the numbers proved to be substantially inaccurate.

Wait, there is more.

Refco Pool had approximately 1,600 partners to whom it was obligated to issue K-1s. Had those K-1s gone south, the partners too could have gone after Refco Pool.

The Court was unconvinced whether Refco Pool could even sign a tax return:           

Based on this knowledge, a reasonable person would likely be concerned with signing the jurat clause at the bottom of Form 1065..." 

COMMENT: The jurat clause is the one at the bottom of the tax form that reads "... to the best of my knowledge and belief, it is true, correct, and complete."

The Court concluded: 

Based on the evidence presented, the Debtor proved that it carefully considered its filing obligations and undertook appropriate steps in an effort to avoid the failure. Accordingly, the Court holds that the debtor acted in a responsible manner both before and after the failure to file occurred."

The Bankruptcy Court disallowed the IRS penalties.

I grant you, this is an extreme case, but perhaps it takes the extreme case to spotlight outrageous government behavior.

Tax penalties can generally be abated for "reasonable" cause. The problem is that the IRS has redefined "reasonable" in a completely unreasonable way. Why? Many suspect that it wants to keep the penalties to supplement its Congressional funding. Is that really what we want: for the IRS to self-fund by automatically assessing penalties and then imperiously decreeing that any request for abatement of said penalties is not "reasonable"?

I propose a compromise if we cannot get the Goose & Gander bill passed: all IRS penalties are to be returned to Treasury. They are then to be re-budgeted as Congress determines, with no assurance that the monies would return to the IRS.  Perhaps that would cool the IRS jets a bit.

Deducting Everything - The Tanzi Doctrine

I admit: I got a chuckle from reading the case.

The taxpayers (Tanzi's) are married, and for the year in question they were employed by Seminole State College, which is Sanford, Florida. I remember a conversation with a Sanford CPA a year or two ago lamenting that there no longer was separation between Orlando and Sanford. I was in Orlando this year, and he is right - there isn't.

Our taxpayer was an adjunct instructor teaching communications, and his wife worked at the campus library. Although an adjunct, he held a PhD in communications, so we can presume he was hoping for a permanent full-time position.

On their 2011 return they deducted the following as employee expenses:

            (1) 100% of their telephone, internet and television

            (2) depreciation

            (3) books, CDs and DVDs

            (4) computer expenses

The IRS bounced the employee expenses and sent them a notice for approximately $3,000.

Employee expenses are a subset of "miscellaneous deductions." One has to itemize to get to miscellaneous deductions, and even then these miscellaneous deductions are not what they used to be. The common itemized deductions are mortgage interest, real estate taxes and contributions. Living in Florida, our taxpayers did not have to concern themselves with another common itemized deduction - state income taxes. Chances are the first three got them into itemized deduction range, and their miscellaneous deductions then became usable. It is rare that miscellaneous deductions by themselves will be enough to get you to itemize.

Miscellaneous deductions are not tax-efficient, though. The Code requires that you reduce your miscellaneous deductions by 2% of your adjusted gross income, so that portion is immediately forfeited.

EXAMPLE: You and your spouse make a combined $150,000. You would have to immediately reduce your miscellaneous deductions by $3,000 (i.e., $150,000 times 2%). If your miscellaneous deductions totaled $3,500, only $500 would be deductible. And yes, it is intentional. It is a way for Congress to pry a few more tax dollars from everyone who incurs employee expenses.

COMMENT: My daughter is working before returning to graduate school. She is required to use her car for work. Although reimbursed something for mileage, it is not the full rate permitted by the IRS. Her employer explained to her that she could deduct the difference come tax time. As her dad and tax advisor, I explained that this was not true. She would not have enough to itemize, and her unreimbursed mileage would be deductible only if she itemized.

By the way, you forfeit all miscellaneous deductions if you are subject to the AMT (alternative minimum tax). As I said, they are not efficient.

The Tanzi's were deducting employee business expenses. The IRS was questioning how 100% of their telephone and internet - just to start - became business. There is a long-standing doctrine that an employee is "in the business" of being an employee, but one still has to show some nexus between the expenses and being an employee. I receive a W-2, for example, but I cannot deduct my Starbucks tab solely for the reason that I am an employee. I would have a business nexus if I met a client there, but not because I was picking up coffee for my commute to the office.

The IRS wanted to know what that nexus was.

The Tanzi's argued that they must constantly expand their "general knowledge" to be effective at their jobs. Mr Tanzi explained that individuals holding terminal degrees - such as himself, coincidently - especially bear a lifelong burden of "developing knowledge, exploring [and] essentially self-educating."   Mr. Tanzi insisted that all expenses paid in pursuing his general knowledge should be deductible as unreimbursed business expenses.

COMMENT: If Mr Tanzi won this argument, I would immediately try to expand the Tanzi doctrine to include tax CPAs with Masters degrees who also maintain a tax blog. Our burdened ranks must constantly expand our general knowledge to be effective at our jobs. I for example sometimes work with and write about international tax matters. Seems to me that a trip overseas to visit my wife's family should be deductible, as it expands my knowledge of being overseas, or some reasoning along those lines.

The tax Code recognizes that some expenses are simply personal in nature. There is even a Code section that says this out loud:

  Section 262 - Personal, living, and family expenses

      (a) General rule

Except as otherwise expressly provided in this chapter, no deduction shall be allowed for personal, living, or family expenses.

Here is the Court:

While we find credible the Tanzi's testimony that they spent significant time and resources educating themselves, we do not believe the expenses are ordinary and necessary for the trades of being a professor or a campus librarian but rather are personal, living or family expenses nondeductible under section 262(a)."

No surprise for the Tanzi's, but I am a bit disappointed. Looks like I won't be able to deduct my life expenses as ordinary and necessary to the business of being a tax CPA and blogger. Those tax refunds would have been sweet.

The IRS Will Begin Taxing Your Employer-Reimbursed Health Insurance

There was an article last week in the New York Times titled “IRS Bars Employers From Dumping Workers into Health Exchanges.” I scanned it quickly and made a note to return to the topic.

The IRS published Notice 2013-54 last year addressing, among other things, employer use of health reimbursement arrangements (HRAs). HRAs were popular for many years as a way to offer employees a tax-free fringe benefit. A common plan was employer reimbursement of qualifying medical expenses up to a limit (say $1,500 annually, for example). I used to be in one several years ago. Twice a year I would submit medical expenses for reimbursement. Shortly thereafter, I would receive a check, all without a nick to my W-2.

Then came ObamaCare.

There are questionable definitional rules under ObamaCare. For example, ObamaCare defines a coterie of health services to be “essential health benefits” (EHBs). You cannot have limits – either annual or lifetime – on EHBs. Why no limits?  It sounds great, like free ponies and summers off, but the government had to promise the insurance companies that it would subsidize them too if ObamaCare ran off the rails.

Think about the interaction of an HRA with the rule concerning EHBs. If an HRA is considered an EHB plan, then the plan will fail because there are annual limitations on the benefit. In our example, the limitation is $1,500, the maximum the plan would reimburse any one employee.

Notice 2013-54 considered HRAs to be just that, and now HRAs – with extremely limited carve-outs – are going the way of the dodo bird.

Let’s put a twist on the HRA example. Let’s say that you buy and your employer reimburses you for health insurance. Can that reimbursement be left off your W-2?

The New York Times was addressing that question.

Let’s go through the decision grid. I see three general ways an employer can approach health insurance:

(1)  The employer provides you with health insurance.

a.     In which case the rest of this discussion does not apply

(2)  The employer does not provide you with health insurance.

a.     Your employer may have issues depending on whether it has 50 employees or more.

                                                              i.     If no, there are no penalties.

                                                            ii.     If yes, your employer has penalties.

b.    You still have no insurance, though.

(3)  The employer does not provide you with health insurance but it does provide you with money to buy health insurance.

a.     Again, your employer may have penalties, depending on whether it has 50 or more employees.

b.    You have more money, but … do you have to pay tax on that money?

Since before Alaska and Hawaii became states, the answer to that question has been “No.”

With ObamaCare, the answer is now “Yes.”

The IRS has stated that any monies provided by your employer in scenario (3) above have to be included on your W-2. This means of course that you are paying taxes on it, and your employer is also paying taxes on it. You and your employer are unhappy with this. Retailers, homebuilders and car dealers are also unhappy with this, as you will have less after-tax money to spend with them. The only one who is happy with this is the government.

You know that there will be employers who are uninformed of these new rules - or informed but not care about any new rules. What will be their penalty for noncompliance?

That is what the IRS clarified last week. The penalty is $100 per day. Yes, that is $100 times 365 days = $36,500 per year. For each employee.

Let’s gain altitude and get some perspective on why the government is being so harsh. 

Remember that policies on the individual health exchanges are eligible for subsidy if one’s family income is less than 400% of the poverty line. The government does not want an employee to go the exchange and possibly receive a government subsidy at the same time that his/her employer is also providing a nontaxable employee benefit. That would be a double-dip.

You have to admit, it is a valid point.

It is also a valid point to question what the real government policy is here: for you to have health insurance or for the government to tax you? If the former, then the government could have reduced – or denied – health exchange subsidies to compensate for an employer reimbursement plan. If the latter, then the most recent IRS pronouncement makes perfect sense.

Another Warning on Deducting Auto Expenses

There is a very recent case concerning tax deductions for business use of a vehicle that I am considering as mandatory reading for many of our clients.

The pattern is repetitive. Either the business provides the car or the employee uses his/her car for business and is not reimbursed. Tax time we ask the following questions: what is your mileage? What do you have as documentation to support that mileage? We review the danger associated with this tax deduction (the IRS will disallow it if you cannot back it up), to which it seems most of the clients roll their eyes and go “yea, yea.”

Well, Jessica Solomon just got schooled. It’s a shame, too, as it sounds like Jessica was trying to do the right thing, but she just didn’t know what that meant. Let’s look at Jessica Solomon v Commissioner.

Jessica Solomon moved from Illinois to Missouri in 2006. First, let me say that I went to the University of Missouri, so I approve of her move. Second, she started work as a commission-only salesperson for seven months – June through December. She was peddling office supplies. Every day she started the morning at the company office in St Louis, and at the end of the day she finished with an evening meeting there. She only made $3,307 in commissions. Considering that she was reimbursed for NOTHING, it sounds to me like this was a waste of her time.

She kept a log in her car. At the start of the day she wrote down her mileage, and at the end she noted her mileage. Unfortunately, there was no other information, such as the towns, prospects or customers she was visiting. It was bare-boned, but it was something.

At the end of the year she went to H&R Block. They deducted her business expenses, including 18,741 business miles.

In January, 2009 the IRS issued a statutory notice disallowing all her mileage and employee expenses for 2006. Jessica, bless her heart, went to Tax Court representing herself (this is called “pro se”). It did not go well for Jessica.

Unfortunately, the court was right. Let’ go through this…

* It is an axiom in tax practice that deductions are a matter of legislative grace. This is fancy way of saying that there is no deduction just because you really, really want there to be one.
* If a taxpayer presents credible evidence on a factual issue concerning tax liability, Code Section 7491(a) shifts the burden of proof to the IRS.
* If Section 7491(a) kicks in, the IRS (or Court) may even estimate the amount of expenses, if the supporting documentation is poor or even nonexistent.
* There are some expenses where the burden of proof does not shift under Section 7491(a).
* A car is one of those expenses. Car expenses are addressed under Section 274(n).
* Section 274(n) says that no deductions are allowed with respect to listed property (think a car) unless very specific documentation requirements are met:

** The amount
** The time and place
** The business purpose
** The taxpayer’s relationship with the persons involved

The Court looked at her log. The court had several problems;

(1) The log noted only the beginning and ending mileage for each day

(2) The log included a 27 mile commute

(3) The log may have included personal trips

So far, I could have worked with this. I would ask Jessica for a Day Runner or some other record of who she visited, where and etc. In fact, had she submitted contact reports to the company, I would ask the company to provide copies for her tax audit. I need corroborating evidence. The evidence does not have to be on the same sheet of paper. In truth, it need not even had been created at the time, although that would of course carry more weight.

Unfortunately Jessica could not do this. Here is the Court:

Petitioner did not present any evidence at trial, such as appointment books, calendars, or maps of her sales territories, to corroborate the bare information contained in the mileage log…”

But the court KNEW that she had to use her car – right? Surely the Court would spot her something.

Although we do not doubt that petitioner used her Chevrolet Cavalier for business between June and December, 2006, we have no choice but to deny in full petitioner’s deduction for mileage expenses. For reasons discussed …, petitioner’s mileage log does not satisfy the adequate records requirement of Section 274(d).”

No mileage deduction for Jessica.

As I said, perhaps this case should be mandatory reading for many of our clients.