A Real Estate Course – And Dave

 

The case made me think of Dave, a friend from long ago – one of those relationships that sometimes surrenders to time, moving and distance.

Dave was going to become a real investor.

That was not his day job, of course. By day he was a sales rep for a medical technology company. And he was good at sales. He almost persuaded me to join his incipient real estate empire.

He had come across one of those real estate gurus – I cannot remember which one – who lectured about making money with other people’s money.

There was even a  3-ring binder or two which Dave gave me to read.

I was looking over a recent case decided by the Tax Court.

The case involved an engineer (Eason) and a nurse (Leisner).

At the start of 2016 they owned two residential properties. One was held for rent; the other was sold during 2016.

COMMENT: Seems to me they were already in the real estate business. It was not a primary gig, but it was a gig.

Eason lost his job during 2016.

A real estate course came to his attention, and he signed up – for the tidy amount of $41,934.

COMMENT: Say what?

In July 2016 the two formed Ashley & Makai Homes (Homes), an S corporation. Homes was formed to provide advice and guidance to real estate owners and investors.  They had business cards and stationary made and started attending some of those $40 grand-plus courses. Not too many, though, as the outfit that sponsored the courses went out of business.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

By 2018 Eason and Leisner abandoned whatever hopes they had for Homes. They never made a dime of income.

You know that $40 grand-plus showed up on the S corporation tax return.

The IRS disallowed the deduction.

And tacked on penalties for the affront.

This is the way, said the IRS.

And so we have a pro se case in the Tax Court.

Respondent advances various reasons why petitioners are not entitled to any deductions …”

The respondent will almost always be the IRS in these cases, as the it is the taxpayer who petitions the Court.

And we have discussed “pro se” many times. It generally means that a taxpayer is representing himself/herself, but that is not fully accurate. A taxpayer can be advised by a professional, but if that professional has not taken and passed the exam to practice before the Tax Court the matter is still considered pro se.

Back to the Court:

          … we need to focus on only one [reason].”

That reason is whether a business had started.

Neither Homes nor petitioners reported any income from a business activity related to the disputed deductions, presumably because none was earned.”

This is not necessarily fatal, though.

The absence of income, in and of itself, does not compel a finding that a business has not yet started if other activities show that it has.”

This seems a reasonably low bar to me: take steps to market the business, whatever those words mean in context. If the context is to acquire clients, then perhaps a website or targeted advertising in the local real estate association newsletter.

Here, however, the absence of income coupled with the absence of any activity that shows that services were offered or provided to clients or customers […] supports respondent’s position that the business had not yet started by the close of the year.”

Yeah, no. The Court noted that a business deduction requires a business. Since a business had not started, no business deduction was available.

The Court disagreed with any penalties, though. There was enough there that a reasonable person could have decided either way.

I agree with the Court, but I also think that just a slight change could have changed the outcome in the taxpayers’ favor.

How?

Here’s one:  remember that Eason and Leisner owned a rental property together?

What if they had broadened Homes’ principal activity to include real estate rental and transferred the property to the S corporation? Homes would have been in business at that point. The tax issue then would have been expansion of the business, not the start of one.

Our case this time was Eason and Leisner v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2024-17.

Renting Real Estate And Self-Employment Tax

 

I was looking at a tax return recently. There was an issue there that I did not immediately recognize.

Let’s go over it.

The client is a new venue for cocktail parties, formal dinners, corporate meetings, bridal showers, wedding rehearsals and receptions, and other such occasions.

The client will configure the space as you wish, but you will have to use a preselected list of caterers should you want food. There is a bar, but you will have to provide your own bartender. You can decorate, but there are strict rules on affixing decorations to walls, fixtures, and such. Nonroutine decorations must be approved in advance. You will have to bring your own sound system should you want music, as no system exists. The client will clean the space at the end of the event, but you must first remove all personal items from the property.

Somewhat specialized and not a business I would pursue, but I gave it no further thought.

The question came up: is this ordinary business income or rental income?

Another way to phrase the question is whether the income would or would not be subject to self-employment tax.

Let’s say you have a duplex. One would be hard pressed to think of a reasonable scenario where you would be paying self-employment tax, as rental income from real estate is generally excepted from self-employment income.

Let’s change the facts. You own a Hyatt Hotel. Yes, it is real estate. Yes, there is rental income. This income, however, will be subject to self-employment tax.

What is the difference? Well, the scale of the activity is one, obviously. Another is the provision of additional services. You may bring in a repairman if there were a problem at the duplex, but you are not going into the unit to wash dishes, vacuum carpets, change bed linens or provide fresh towels. There is a limit. On the other hand, who knows what concierge services at a high-end hotel might be able to provide or arrange.

We are on a spectrum, it appears. It would help to have some clarification on which services are innocuous and which are taunting the bull.

IRS Chief Counsel Advice 202151005 addressed the spectrum in the context of residential rental property.

First a warning. A CCA provides insight into IRS thinking on a topic, but that thinking is not considered precedent, nor does it constitute substantial authority in case of litigation. That is fine for us, as we have no intention of litigating anything or having a tax doctrine named after us.

Here is scenario one from the CCA:

·       You are not a real estate dealer.

·       You rent beachfront property via online marketplaces (think Airbnb).

·       You provide kitchen items, Wi-Fi, recreational equipment, prepaid ride-share vouchers to the business district and daily maid service.

Here is scenario two:

·       You are not a real estate dealer.

·       You rent out a bedroom and bathroom in your home via online marketplaces.

·       A renter has access to common areas only to enter and exit.

·       You clean the bedroom and bathroom after each renter’s stay.

I am not overwhelmed by either scenario. Scenario one offers a little more than scenario two, but neither is a stay at the Hotel Jerome.

Here is the CCA walkthrough:

·       Tax law considers rental income collected by a non-dealer to be non-self- employment income.

·       However, the law says nothing about providing services.

·       Allowable services include:

o   Those clearly required to maintain the property in condition for occupancy, and

o   Are a sufficiently insubstantial portion of the rent.

·       Nonallowable services include:

o   Those not clearly required to maintain the property in condition for occupancy, and

o   Are so substantial as to comprise a material portion of the rent.

The CCA considered scenario two to be fine.

COMMENT: I would think so. The services are minimal unless you consider ingress and egress to be substantial services.

The CCA considered scenario one not to be fine.

Why not?

·       The services are for the convenience of the occupants.

·       The services are beyond those necessary to maintain the space for occupancy.

·       The services are sufficient to constitute a material portion of the rent.       

I get the big picture: the closer you get to hotel accommodations the more likely you are to be subject to self-employment tax. I am instead having trouble with the smaller picture – the details a tax practitioner is looking for – and which signal one’s location on the spectrum.

·       Is the IRS saying that services beyond the mere availability of a bed and bathroom are the path to the dark side?

·       IRS Regulations refer to services customarily provided.

o   How is one to test customarily: with reference to nearby full-service hotels or only with other nearby online rentals?

o   In truth, did the IRS look at any nearby services in scenario one?

·       What does material portion mean?

o   Would the provision of services at a lower rent situs (say Athens, Georgia) result in a different answer from the provision of comparable services at a higher rent situs (say Aspen, Colorado)?

o   What about a different time of year? Can one provide more services during a peak rental period (say the NCAA Tournament) and not run afoul of the material portion requirement??

One wonders how much this CCA has reinforced online rental policies such as running-the-dishwasher and take-out-the-trash-when-you-leave. There is no question that I would advise an Airbnb client not to provide daily services, whatever they may be.

I also suspect why our client set up their venue the way they did.

The Augusta Rule And Renting To Yourself

I came across the Augusta rule recently.

This is Code section 280A(g), the tax provision that allows one to rent their home for less than 15 days per year without paying tax on the income. It got its name from the famous Augusta National Golf Club in Georgia. There would not be sufficient housing during the Masters without participation by local homeowners. The section has been with us since the 1970s.

There are requirements, of course:

(1)  The property must be in the U.S.

(2)  The property needs to be a residence. Mind you, it does not need to be your primary residence. It can be a second home. Or a third home, if you are so fortunate.

(3)  The house cannot be a place of business.

a.    The Augusta rule does not work well with an office-in-home, for example.

(4)  Rental expenses (excluding expenses such as mortgage interest and taxes which are deductible irrespective of any rental) become nondeductible.

(5)  A proprietorship (or disregarded single-member LLC) does not qualify. Mind you, a corporation you wholly own will qualify, but your proprietorship will not.

a.    Another way to say this is that both the rental income and expense cannot show up on the same tax return.

(6)  The rent must be reasonable.

(7)  There must be a business purpose for the rental.

Tax advisors long ago realized that they could leverage the Augusta rule if the homeowner also owned a business. How? Have the business rent the house from the homeowner for less than 15 days over a rolling 12-month period.

Can it work?

Sure.

Will the IRS challenge it?

Let’s look at a recent case to see a common IRS challenge to Augusta-rule rentals.

Two anesthesiologists and an orthopedic representative owned Planet LA, LLC (Planet). Planet in turn owned several Planet Fitness franchises in Louisiana. It opened its first one in 2013 and was up to five by 2017 when it sold all its franchises.

The three shareholders had issues with regular business meetings because of work schedules and distance. Beginning in 2015 they decided to have regular meetings at their residences. Planet would pay rent (of course), which varied in amount until it eventually settled on $3,000 per month to each shareholder.

One of the advantages of having three shareholders was being able to apply the Augusta rule to three houses. If you think about it, this allowed Planet to have up to 42 meetings annually without voiding the day count for any one residence.

Let’s do some quick math.

$3,000 x 3 shareholders x 14 meetings = $126,000

Planet could deduct up to $126,000 and the shareholders would report no rental income.

Sweet.

The IRS wanted to look at this.

Of course.

The first IRS challenge: show us agendas and notes for each meeting.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners failed to produce any credible evidence of what business was conducted at such meetings, and their testimony was vague and unconvincing regarding the meetings.”

Oh, oh.

The second challenge: the revenue agent researched local rental rates for meeting space. He determined that one could rent space accommodating up to 1,200 people for $500 per day.

The shareholders could not prove otherwise.

Here is the Court:

While petitioners argue that the $500 rent determined by … was not reasonable, we disagree and find to the contrary that $500 allowed per month is actually generous.”

This was almost too easy for the IRS.

·      Prove the number of meetings.

·      Multiply that number by $500.

The IRS allowed Planet rent deductions as follows:

          2017           none, as no meetings were proven

          2018           12 meetings times $500 = $6,000

          2019           9 meetings times $500 = $4,500

The shareholders had deducted $290,900 over three years.

The IRS allowed $10,500.

Yep, that is an IRS adjustment of over $280 grand over three years, with minimal effort by the IRS.

And that is how the IRS goes after the Augusta rule in a self-rental context.

The takeaway?

The Augusta rule can work, but you want to document and substantiate everything.

You want to have agendas for every meeting, perhaps followed up with minutes of the same.

Be careful (and reasonable) with the rental rate. This is not VRBO. You are renting a portion of a house, not the full house. You are renting for a portion of a day, not for days or weeks. You cannot just look up weekly house rentals online and divide them by seven. Those rental rates are for a different use and not necessarily comparable to business use of the residence.

You may want to formally invoice the business.

You want to pay the rent from the business bank account.

Our case this time was Sinopoli et al v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-105.

Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).

 

Starting A Business In The Desert

 

Tax has something called “startup costs.”

The idea is to slow down how quickly you can deduct these costs, and it can hurt.

Let’s take a common enough example: starting a restaurant.

You are interested in owning a restaurant. You look at several existing restaurants that may be available for purchase, but you eventually decide to renovate existing space and open your own- and new – restaurant. You lease or buy, then hire an architect for the design and a contractor for the build-out of the space.

You are burning through money.

You still do not have a tax deduction. Expenses incurred when you were evaluating existing restaurants are considered investigatory expenses. The idea here is that you were thinking of doing something, but you were not certain which something to do – or whether to do anything at all.

Investigatory expenses are a type of startup expense.

The contractor comes in. You are installing walls and windows and floors and fixtures. The equipment and furniture are delivered next.

You will depreciate these expenses, but not yet. Depreciation begins when an asset is placed in service, and it is hard to argue that assets are placed in service before the business itself begins.

You still do not have a tax deduction.

You will be the head chef, but still need your sous and line chefs, as well as a hostess, waitpersons, bartender and busboys. You have payroll and you have not served your first customer.

It is relatively common for a restaurant to have a soft launch, meaning the restaurant is open to invited guests only. This is a chance to present the menu and to shakedown the kitchen and floor staff before opening doors to the general public. It serves a couple of purposes: first, to make sure everyone and everything is ready; second, to stop the startup period. 

Think about the expenses you have incurred just to get to your soft launch: the investigatory expenses, the architect and contractor, the construction costs, the fixtures and furniture, employee training, advertising and so on.

Carve out the stuff that is depreciable, as that has its own rules. The costs that are left represent startup costs.

The tax Code – in its wisdom or jest – allows you to immediately deduct up to $5,000 of startup costs, and even that skeletal amount is reduced if you have “too many” startup costs.

Whatever remains is deductible pro-rata over 15 years.

Yes, 15 years. Almost enough time to get a kid through grade and high school.

You clearly want to minimize startup costs, if at all possible. There are two general ways to do this:

·      Start doing business as soon as possible.  Perhaps you start takeout or delivery as soon as the kitchen is ready and before the overall restaurant is open for service.

·      You expand an existing business, with expansion in this example meaning your second (or later) restaurant. While you are starting another restaurant, you are already in the business of operating restaurants. You are past startup, at least as far as restaurants go.

Let’s look at the Safaryan case.

In 2012 or 2013 Vardan Antonyan purchased 10 acres in the middle of the Mojave desert. It was a mile away from a road and about 120 miles away from where Antonyan and his wife lived. It was his plan to provide road access to the property, obtain approval for organic farming, install an irrigation system and subdivide and rent individual parcels to farmers.  

The place was going to be called “Paradise Acres.” I am not making this up.

Antonyan created a business plan. Step one was to construct a nonlivable structure (think a barn), to be followed by certification with the Department of Agriculture, an irrigation system and construction of an access road.

Forward to 2015 and Antoyan was buying building materials, hiring day laborers and renting equipment to build that barn.

Antoyan and his wife (Safaryan) filed their 2015 tax return and claim approximately $25 thousand in losses from this activity.

The IRS bounced the return.

Their argument?

The business never started.

How did the IRS get there?

Antonyan never accomplished one thing in his business plan by the end of 2015. Mind you, he started constructing the barn, but he had not finished it by year-end. This did not mean that he was not racking-up expenses. It just meant that the expenses were startup costs, to be deducted at that generous $5,00/15-year burn rate starting in the year the business actually started.

The Court wanted to see revenue. Revenue is the gold standard when arguing business startup. There was none, however, placing tremendous pressure on Antonyan to explain how the business had started without tenants or rent – when tenants and rent were the entirety of the business.  Perhaps he could present statements from potential tenants about negotiations with Antonyan – something to persuade the Court.   

He couldn’t.

Meaning he did not start in 2015.

Our case this time was Safaryan v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-138.

IRS Challenges Rent In A Small Town

Let’s look at a case involving rent.

What sets this up is a C corporation in Montana.

A C corporation means that it pays its own tax. Contrast this with an S corporation, which (with rare exception) passes-through its income to its shareholders, who then combine that income with their own income (W-2, interest and dividends) and pay tax personally.

As a generalization, a tax advisor working with entrepreneurial clients is much more likely to work with S corporations (or LLCs, an increasingly popular choice). The reason is simple: a C corporation has two levels of tax: once to the company itself and then to the owners when distributed as dividends. Now that may not be an issue to a Fortune 1000, some of which are larger than certain countries and themselves are near-permanent entities - expected to outlive any current corporate officer or investor. It however is an issue to a closely-held company that will be lucky to transition one generation and unlikely to transition two.

Plentywood Drug is a Montana corporation that operates the only pharmacy in Plentywood, Montana and serves four counties spanning 7,200 square miles.

The company has four owners, representing two families.

It leases a building owned by its four owners.

COMMENT: So far, there is zero unusual about this.

The company paid the following rent:

           2011                       $ 83,584

           2012                       $192,000

           2013                       $192,000

The IRS did not like this one bit.

Why not?

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. The IRS said that the company was paying too much in rent. Rent is deductible. Excess rent is considered a dividend and is not deductible. The corporation would lose a deduction for its excess rent. The owners however received $192,000, so they are going to be taxed on that amount. How will they be taxed if the IRS ratches-down the rent? The excess will be considered dividends and taxed to them accordingly.

Remember: a C corporation does not get a deduction for dividends. The IRS gets more tax from the company while the individual taxes of the four owners stays the same. It’s a win for the IRS.

An S corporation does not have this issue, as all income of the S is taxed to its owners. This is another reason that tax advisors representing entrepreneurial wealth prefer working with S corporations.

How does the IRS win this?

Well, it has to show that $192,000 is too much rent.

Problem: the town of Plentywood has 1,700 people.

Another problem: Montana is a nondisclosure state, meaning real estate data – such as sales prices – is legally confidential and simply not available.

The IRS brought in its valuation specialist. Third problem: Montanans do not tend to share financial information easily with strangers.

The IRS expert remarked that that he did not identify himself as an IRS agent while he was in Plentywood.

Probably for the best.

Then the IRS expert made a fateful decision: he would base his appraisal solely on Plentywood data.

Well, that should take about half a day.

He looked at the post office, two apartment buildings and a 625-square-foot commercial space.

He did the best he could to compensate by making adjustments: for commercial versus residential, for the safety of the Post Office as a tenant, for Aaron Rodgers possibly leaving the Packers.

The two families brought in their specialist, who supplemented his database by including Williston, North Dakota – the “big town” about an hour away and with a population about eight times the size.

The IRS argued that Williston was simply not comparable.

Here is the Court:

We therefore do not accept the Williston properties as being reasonable comparisons.”

Oh oh.

The two families argued that the IRS specialist was mixing tamarinds and eggplants.

Here is the Court:

His expert used two residential properties in his analysis. Government-subsidized multifamily residential housing is like a retail drugstore in that both are rented. But not in much else.”

You can tell the Court was frustrated.

How about the post office? Both sides used the post office.

Yet even though both sides agree that the post office is comparable, they disagree about the number of square feet it has.”

The Court – having to do something – decided that fair rent was $171,187.

The IRS then wanted penalties. The IRS always wants penalties.

What for?

The Commissioner alleges that the first cause on this list – negligence or disregard of rules or regulations … - applies to Plentywood Drug ….”

The Court squinted and said: What? You brought a trial, the rent turned out to be within $20 grand of what the families deducted in the first place, we have heard far too much about appraising properties over frontier America and you have the nerve to say that there was negligence or disregard?

The Court adjusted the rent and nixed the penalties.

Our case this time was Plentywood Drug Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-45.

Don’t Be A Jerk

 

I am looking at a case containing one of my favorite slams so far this year.

Granted, it is 2020 COVID, so the bar is lower than usual.

The case caught my attention as it begins with the following:

The Johnsons brought this suit seeking refunds of $373,316, $192,299, and $114,500 ….”

Why, yes, I would want a refund too.

What is steering this boat?

… the IRS determined that the Johnsons were liable for claimed Schedule E losses related to real estate and to Dr. Johnson’s business investments.”

Got it. The first side of Schedule E is for rental real estate, so I gather the doctor is landlording. The second side reports Schedules K-1 from passthroughs, so the doctor must be invested in a business or two.

There is a certain predictability that comes from reviewing tax cases over the years. We have rental real estate and a doctor.

COMMENT: Me guesses that we have a case involving real estate professional status. Why? Because you can claim losses without the passive activity restrictions if you are a real estate pro.

It is almost impossible to win a real estate professional case if you have a full-time gig outside of real estate.  Why? Because the test involves a couple of hurdles:

·      You have to spend at least 750 hours during the year in real estate activities, and

·      Those hours have to be more than ½ of hours in all activities.

One might make that first one, but one is almost certain to fail the second test if one has a full-time non-real-estate gig. Here we have a doctor, so I am thinking ….

Wait. It is Mrs. Johnson who is claiming real estate professional status.

That might work. Her status would impute to him, being married and all.

What real estate do they own?

They have properties near Big Bear, California.

These were not rented out. Scratch those.

There was another one near Big Bear, but they used a property management company to help manage it. One year they used the property personally.

Problem: how much is there to do if you hired a property management company? You are unlikely to rack-up a lot of hours, assuming that you are even actively involved to begin with.

Then there were properties near Las Vegas, but those also had management companies. For some reason these properties had minimal paperwork trails.

Toss up these softballs and the IRS will likely grind you into the dirt. They will scrutinize your time logs for any and every. Guess what, they found some discrepancies. For example, Mrs. Johnson had counted over 80 hours studying for the real estate exam.

Can’t do that. Those hours might be real-estate related, but the they are not considered operational hours - getting your hands dirty in the garage, so to speak. That hurt. Toss out 80-something hours and …. well, let’s just say she failed the 750-hour test.

No real estate professional status for her.

So much for those losses.

Let’s flip to the second side of the Schedule E, the one where the doctor reported Schedules K-1.

There can be all kinds of tax issues on the second side. The IRS will probably want to see the K-1s. The IRS might next inquire whether you are actually working in the business or just an investor – the distinction means something if there are losses. If there are losses, the IRS might also want to review whether you have enough money tied-up – that is, “basis” - to claim the loss. If you have had losses over several years, they may want to see a calculation whether any of that “basis” remains to absorb the current year loss.

 Let’s start easy, OK? Let’s see the K-1s.

The Johnson’s pointed to a 1000-plus page Freedom of Information request.

Here is the Court:

The Johnsons never provide specific citations to any information within this voluminous exhibit and instead invite the court to peruse it in its entirety to substantiate their arguments.”

Whoa there, guys! Just provide the K-1s. We are not here to make enemies.

Here is the Court:

It behooves litigants, particularly in a case with a record of this magnitude, to resist the temptation to treat judges as if they were pigs sniffing for truffles.”

That was a top-of-the-ropes body slam and one of the best lines of 2020.

The Johnsons lost across the board.

Is there a moral to this story?

Yes. Don’t be a jerk.

Our case this time was Johnson DC-Nevada, No 2:19-CV-674.

Deducting Expenses Paid With Paycheck Protection Loans

There was a case in 1931 that is influencing a public controversy today.

Let’s talk about it.

The taxpayer (Slayton) was in the business of buying, holding and selling tax-exempt bonds. He would at times borrow money to buy or to carry tax-exempt bonds he already owned.

Slayton had tax-exempt interest income coming in. That amount was approximately $65 thousand.

Slayton was also paying interest. That amount was approximately $78 thousand.

COMMENT: On first read it does not appear that dear old Slayton was the Warren Buffett of his day.

Time came to file his tax return. He omitted the $65 grand in interest received because … well, it was tax-exempt.

He deducted the $78 grand that he was paying to carry those tax-exempt securities.

The IRS said no dice.

Off to Court they went.

Slayton was hot. He made several arguments:

(1)  The government was discriminating against owners of tax-exempt securities and – in effect – nullifying their exemption from taxation.

(2)  The government was discriminating against dealers in tax-exempt bonds that had to borrow money to carry an inventory of such bonds.

(3)  The government was discriminating in favor of dealers of tax-exempt bonds who did not have to borrow to carry an inventory of such bonds.

I admit: he had a point.

The government had a point too.

(1)  The income remained tax-exempt. The issue at hand was not the interest income; rather it was the interest expense.

(2)  Slayton borrowed money for the express purpose of carrying tax-exempt securities. This was not an instance where someone owned an insubstantial amount of tax-exempts within a larger portfolio or where a business owning tax-exempts borrowed money to meet normal business needs.

The link between the bonds and the loans to buy them was too strong in this case. The Court disallowed the interest expense. Since then, tax practitioners refer to the Slayton issue as the “double-dip.”  The dip even has its own Code section:

        § 265 Expenses and interest relating to tax-exempt income.

(a)  General rule.

No deduction shall be allowed for-

(1)  Expenses.

Any amount otherwise allowable as a deduction which is allocable to one or more classes of income other than interest (whether or not any amount of income of that class or classes is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle, or any amount otherwise allowable under section 212 (relating to expenses for production of income) which is allocable to interest (whether or not any amount of such interest is received or accrued) wholly exempt from the taxes imposed by this subtitle.

Over the years the dip has evolved to include income other than tax-exempt interest, but the core concept remains: one cannot deduct expenses with too strong a tie to nontaxable income.

Let’s fast forward almost 90 years and IRS Notice 2020-32.

To the extent that section 1106(i) of the CARES Act operates to exclude from gross income the amount of a covered loan forgiven under section 1106(b) of the CARES Act, the application of section 1106(i) results in a “class of exempt income” under §1.265- 1(b)(1) of the Regulations. Accordingly, section 265(a)(1) of the Code disallows any otherwise allowable deduction under any provision of the Code, including sections 162 and 163, for the amount of any payment of an eligible section 1106 expense to the extent of the resulting covered loan forgiveness (up to the aggregate amount forgiven) because such payment is allocable to tax-exempt income. Consistent with the purpose of section 265, this treatment prevents a double tax benefit.

I admit, it is not friendly reading.

The CARES Act is a reference to the Paycheck Protection loans. These are SBA loans created in response to COVID-19 to help businesses pay salaries and rent. If the business uses the monies for their intended purpose, the government will forgive the loan.

Generally speaking, forgiveness of a loan results in taxable income, with exceptions for extreme cases such as bankruptcy. The tax reasoning is that one is “wealthier” than before, and the government can tax that accession to wealth as income.

However, the CARES Act specifically stated that forgiveness of a Paycheck Protection loan would not result in taxable income.

So we have:

(1)  A loan that should be taxable – but isn’t - when it is forgiven.

(2)  A loan whose proceeds are used to pay salaries and rent, which are routine deductible expenses.

This sets up the question:

Are the salaries, rent and other qualified expenses paid with a Paycheck Protection loan deductible?

You see how we got to this question, with Section 265, Slayton and subsequent cases that expanded on the double dip.

The IRS said No.

This answer makes sense from a tax perspective.

This answer does not make sense from a political perspective, with Senators Wyden and Grassley and Representative Neal writing to Secretary Mnuchin that this result was not the intent of Congress.

I believe them.

I have a suggestion.

Change the tax law.