Sell Today And Pay Tax in Thirty Years

Sometimes I am amazed to the extent people will go to minimize, defer or avoid taxes altogether.

I get it, though. When that alarm clocks goes off in the morning, there is no government bureaucrat there to prepare your breakfast or drive you to work. Fair share rings trite when yours is the only share visible for miles.

I am looking at an IRS Chief Council Advice.

Think of the Chief Counsel as the attorneys advising the IRS. The Advice would therefore be legal analysis of an IRS position on something.

This one has to do with something called Monetized Installment Sale Transactions.

Lot of syllables there.

Let’s approach this from the ground floor.

What is an installment sale?

This is a tax provision that allows one to sell approved asset types and spread the tax over the years as cash is collected. Say you sell land with the purchase price paid evenly over three calendar years. Land is an approved asset type, and you would pay tax on one-third of your gain in the year of sale, one-third the following year and the final third in the third year.

It doesn’t make the gain go away. It just allows one to de-bunch the taxation on the gain.

Mind you, you have to trust that the buyer can and will pay you for the later years. If you do not trust the buyer’s ability (or intention) to do so, this may not be the technique for you.

What if the buyer pays an attorney the full amount, and that attorney in turn pays you over three years? You have taken the collection risk off the table, as the monies are sitting in an attorney’s escrow account.

You are starting to think like a tax advisor, but the technique will almost certainly not work.

Why?

Well, an easy IRS argument is that the attorney is acting as your agent, and receipt of cash by your agent is the equivalent of you receiving cash. This is the doctrine of “constructive receipt,” and it is one of early (and basic) lessons as one starts his/her tax education.

What if you borrow against the note? You just go down to Fifth Third or Truist Bank, borrow and pledge the note as collateral.

Nice.

Except that Congress thought about this and introduced a “pledging” rule. In short, a pledge of the note is considered constructive receipt on the note itself.

Not to be deterred, interested parties noticed a Chief Council’s Memorandum from 2012 that seemed to give the OK to (at least some of) these transactions. There was a company that need cash and needed it right away. It unloaded farm property in a series of transactions involving special purpose entities, standby letters of credit and other arcane details.

The IRS went through 11 painful pages of analysis, but wouldn’t you know that – at the end – the IRS gave its blessing.

Huh?

The advisors and promoters latched-on and used this Memorandum to structure future installment sale monetization deals.

Here is an example:

(1)  Let’s say I want to sell something.

(2)  Let’s say you want to buy what I am selling.

(3)  There is someone out there (let’s call him Elbert) who is willing to broker our deal – for a fee of course.

(4)  Neither you or I are related to Elbert or give cause to consider him our agent.

(5)  Elbert buys my something and gives me a note. In our example Elbert promises to pay me interest annually and the balance of the note 30 years from now.

(6)  You buy the something from Elbert. Let’s say you pay Elbert in full, either because you have cash in-hand or because you borrow money.

(7)  A bank loans me money. There will be a labyrinth of escrow accounts to maintain kayfabe that I have not borrowed against my note receivable from Elbert.

(8)  At least once a year, the following happens:

a.    I collect interest on my note receivable from Elbert.

b.    I pay interest on my note payable to the bank.

c.    By some miraculous result of modern monetary theory, it is likely that these two amounts will offset.

(9)  I eventually collect on Elbert’s note. This will trigger tax to me, assuming someone remembers what this note is even about 30 years from now.

(10)      Having cash, I repay the bank for the loan it made 30 years earlier.

There is the monetization: reducing to money, preferably without taxation.

How much of the original sales price can I get using this technique?

Maybe 92% or 93% of what you paid Elbert, generally speaking.

Where does the rest of the money go?

Elbert and the bank.

Why would I give up 7 or 8 percent to Elbert and the bank?

To defer my tax for decades.

Do people really do this?

Yep, folks like Kimberly Clark and OfficeMax.

So what was the recent IRS Advice that has us talking about this?

The IRS was revisiting its 2012 Memorandum, the one that advisors have been relying upon. The IRS lowered its horns, noting that folks were reading too much into that Memorandum and that they might want to reconsider their risk exposure.

The IRS pointed out several possible issues, but we will address only one.

The company in that 2012 Memorandum was transacting with farmland.

Guess what asset type is exempt from the “pledging” rule that accelerates income on an installment note?

Farmland.

Seems a critical point, considering that monetization is basically a work-around the pledging prohibition.

Is this a scam or tax shelter?

Not necessarily, but consider the difference between what happened in 2012 and how the promoters are marketing what happened.

Someone was in deep financial straits. They needed cash, they had farmland, and they found a way to get to cash. There was economic reality girding the story.   

Fast forward to today. Someone has a big capital gain. They do not want to pay taxes currently, or perhaps they prefer to delay recognizing the gain until a more tax-favorable political party retakes Congress and the White House. A moving story, true, but not as poignant as the 2012 story.   

For the home gamers, this time we have been discussing CCA 2019103109421213.

Abandoning A Partnership Interest

I suspect that most taxpayers know that there is a difference between long-term capital gains and ordinary income. Long-term capital gains receive a lower tax rate, incentivizing one to prefer long-terms gains, if at all possible.

Capital losses are not as useful. Capital losses offset capital gains, whether short-term or long-term. If one has net capital losses left over, then one can claim up to $3,000 of such losses to offset non-capital gain income (think your W-2).

That $3,000 number has not changed since I was in school.

And there is an example of a back-door tax increase. Congress has imposed an effective tax increase by not pegging the $3,000 to (at least) the rate of inflation for the last how-many decades. It is the same thing they have done with the threshold amount for the net investment income or the additional Medicare tax. It is an easy way to raise taxes without publicly raising taxes.

I am looking at a case where two brothers owned Edwin Watts Golf. Most of the stores were located on real estate also owned by the brothers, so the brothers owned two things: a golf supply business and the real estate it was housed in.

In 2003 a private equity firm (Wellspring) offered the brothers $93 million for the business. The brothers took the money (so would I), kept the real estate and agreed to certain terms, such as Wellspring having control over any sale of the business. The brothers also received a small partnership position with Wellspring.

Why did they keep the real estate? Because the golf businesses were paying rent, meaning that even more money went their way.

The day eventually came when Wellspring wanted out; that is what private equity does, after all. It was looking at two offers: one was with Dick’s Sporting Goods and the other with Sun Capital.  Dick’s Sporting already had its own stores and would have no need for the existing golf shop locations. The brothers realized that would be catastrophic for the easy-peasy rental income that was coming in, so they threw their weight behind the offer by Sun Capital.

Now, one does not own a private equity firm by being a dummy, so Wellspring wanted something in return for choosing Sun Capital over Dick’s Sporting.

Fine, said the brothers: you can keep our share of the sales proceeds.

The brothers did not run the proposed transaction past their tax advisor. This was unfortunate, as there was a tax trap waiting to spring.  

Generally speaking, the sale or exchange of a partnership interest results in capital gain or loss. The partners received no cash from the sale. Assuming they had basis (that is, money invested) in the partnership, the sale or exchange would have resulted in a capital loss.

Granted, one can use capital losses against capital gains, but that means one needs capital gains.   What if you do not have enough gains? Any gains? We then get back to an obsolete $3,000 per year allowance. Have a big enough loss and one would need the lifespan of a Tolkien elf to use-up the loss.

The brothers’ accountant found out what happened during tax season and well after the fact. He too knew the issue with capital losses. He played a card, in truth the only card he had. Could what happened be reinterpreted as the abandonment of a partnership interest?

There is something you don’t see every day.

Let’s talk about it.

This talk gets us into Code sections, as the reasoning is that one does not have a “sale or exchange” of a partnership interest if one abandons the interest. This gets the tax nerd away from the capital gain/loss requirement of Section 741 and into the more temperate climes of Section 165. One would plan the transaction to get to a more favorable Code section (165) and avoid a less favorable one (741). 

There are hurdles here, though. The first two are generally not a problem, but the third can be brutal.

The first two are as follows:

(1) The taxpayer must show an intent to abandon the interest; and

(2)  The taxpayer must show an affirmative act of abandonment.

This is not particularly hard to do, methinks. I would send a letter to the tax matters or general partner indicating my intent to abandon the interest, and then I would send (to all partners, if possible) a letter that I have in fact abandoned my interest and relinquished all rights and benefits thereunder. This assumes there is no partners’ meeting. If there was a meeting, I would do it there. Heck, I might do both to avoid all doubt.

What is the third hurdle?

There can be no “consideration” on the way out.

Consideration in tax means more than just receiving money. It also includes someone assuming debt you were previously responsible for.

The rule-of-thumb in a general partnership is that the partners are responsible for their allocable share of partnership debt. This is a problem, especially if one is not interested in being liable for any share of any debt. This is how we got to limited partnerships, where the general partner is responsible for the debts and the limited partners are not.

Extrapolating the above, a general partner in a general partnership is going to have issues abandoning a partnership interest if the partnership has debt. The partnership would have to pay-off that debt, refinance the debt from recourse to nonrecourse, or perhaps a partner or group of partners could assume the debt, excluding the partner who wants to abandon.

Yea, the planning can be messy for a general partnership.

It would be less messy for a limited partner in a limited partnership.

Then we have the limited liability companies. (LLCs). Those bad boys have a splash of general partnership, a sprinkling of limited partnership, and they can result in a stew of both rules.

The third plank to the abandonment of a partnership interest can be formidable, depending on how the entity is organized and how the debts are structured. If a partner wants an abandonment, it is more likely than not that pieces on the board have to be moved in order to get there.   

The brothers’ accountant however had no chance to move pieces before Wellspring sold Edwin Watts Golf. He held his breath and prepared tax returns showing the brothers as abandoning their partnership interests. This gave them ordinary losses, meaning that the losses were immediately useful on their tax returns.

The IRS caught it and said “no way.”

There were multiple chapters in the telling of this story, but in the end the Court decided for the IRS.

Why?

Because the brothers had the option of structuring the transaction to obtain the tax result they desired. If they wanted an abandonment, then they should have taken the steps necessary for an abandonment. They did not. There is a long-standing doctrine in the Code that a taxpayer is allowed to structure a transaction anyway he/she wishes, but once structured the taxpayer has to live with the consequences. This doctrine is not tolerant of taxpayer do-overs.

The brothers had a capital and not an ordinary loss. They were limited to capital gains plus $3 grand per year. Yay.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Watts, T.C. Memo 2017-114.

Like-Kind Exchange? Bulk Up Your Files

I met with a client a couple of weeks ago. He owns undeveloped land that someone has taken an interest in. He initially dismissed their overtures, saying that the land was not for sale or – if it were – it would require a higher price than the potential buyer would be interested in paying.

Turns out they are interested.

The client and I met. We cranked a few numbers to see what the projected taxes would be. Then we talked about like-kind exchanges.

It used to be that one could do a like-kind exchange with both real property and personal property. The tax law changed recently and personal property no longer qualifies. This doesn’t sound like much, but consider that the trade-in of a car is technically a like-kind exchange. The tax change defused that issue by allowing 100% depreciation (hopefully) on a business vehicle in the year of purchase. Eventually Congress will again change the depreciation rules, and trade-ins of business vehicles will present a tax issue.

There are big-picture issues with a like-kind exchange:

(1)  Trade-down, for example, and you will have income.

(2)  Walk away with cash and you will have income.

(3)  Reduce the size of the loan and (without additional planning) you will have income.

I was looking at a case that presented another potential trap.

The Brelands owned a shopping center in Alabama.

In 2003 they sold the shopping center. They rolled-over the proceeds in a like-kind exchange involving 3 replacement properties. One of those properties was in Pensacola and becomes important to our story.

In 2004 they sold Pensacola. Again using a like-kind, they rolled-over the proceeds into 2 properties in Alabama. One of those properties was on Dauphin Island.

They must have liked Dauphin Island, as they bought a second property there.

Then they refinanced the two Dauphin Island properties together.

Fast forward to 2009 and they defaulted on the Dauphin Island loan. The bank foreclosed. The two properties were sold to repay the bank

This can create a tax issue, depending on whether one is personally liable for the loan. Our taxpayers were. When this happens, the tax Code sees two related but separate transactions:

(1) One sells the property. There could be gain, calculated as:

Sales price – cost (that is, basis) in the property

(2) There is cancellation of indebtedness income, calculated as:

Loan amount – sales price

There are tax breaks for transaction (2) – such as bankruptcy or insolvency – but there is no break for transaction (1). However, if one is being foreclosed, how often will the fair market value (that is, sales price) be greater than cost? If that were the case, wouldn’t one just sell the property oneself and repay the bank, skipping the foreclosure?

Now think about the effect of a like-kind exchange and one’s cost or basis in the property. If you keep exchanging and the properties keep appreciating, there will come a point where the relationship between the price and the cost/basis will become laughingly dated. You are going to have something priced in 2019 dollars but having basis from …. well, whenever you did the like-kind exchange.

Heck, that could be decades ago.

For the Brelands, there was a 2009 sales price and cost or basis from … whenever they acquired the shopping center that started their string of like-kind exchanges.

The IRS challenged their basis.

Let’s talk about it.

The Brelands would have basis in Dauphin Island as follows:

(1)  Whatever they paid in cash

(2)  Plus whatever they paid via a mortgage

(3)  Plus whatever basis they rolled over from the shopping center back in 2003

(4)  Less whatever depreciation they took over the years

The IRS challenged (3).  Show us proof of the rolled-over basis, they demanded.

The taxpayers provided a depreciation schedule from 2003. They had nothing else.

That was a problem. You see, a depreciation schedule is a taxpayer-created (truthfully, more like a taxpayer’s-accountant-created) document. It is considered self-serving and would not constitute documentation for this purpose.

The Tax Court bounced item (3) for that reason.

What would have constituted documentation?

How about the closing statement from the sale of the shopping center?

As well as the closing statement when they bought the shopping center.

And maybe the depreciation schedules for the years in between, as depreciation reduces one’s basis in the property.

You are keeping a lot of paperwork for Dauphin Island.

You should also do the same for any and all other properties you acquired using a like-kind exchange.

And there is your trap. Do enough of these exchanges and you are going to have to rent a self-storage place just to house your paperwork.

Our case this time was Breland v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2019-59.

A College Student and Ethereum

I have passed on Bitcoin and other cryptocurrencies.

I do not quite understand them, nor am I a Russian oligarch or Chinese billionaire trying to get money out of the country.

I certainly do not think of them as money.

The IRS agrees, having said that cryptos are property, not money.

This has very significant tax consequences.

I can take $100 out of my bank and pay cash at the dry cleaners, Starbucks, Jimmy John’s and Kroger without triggering a tax event.

Do that with a crypto and you have four taxable events.

That is the difference between property and money.

COMMENT: To be fair, money (that is, currency) can also be bought and sold like property. That is what the acronym “forex” refers to. It happens all the time and generally is the province of international companies hedging their cash exchange positions. Forex trading will trigger a tax consequence, but that is not what we are talking about here.

I am reading about a college student who in 2017 invested $5,000 in Ethereum, a cryptocurrency.

Within a few months his position was worth approximately $128,000.

He diversified to other cryptos (I am not sure that counts as diversification, truthfully) and by the end of the year he was closing on $900 grand.

Wow!

2018 has not been kind to him, however, and now he is back to around $125 grand.

Do you see the tax problem here?

Yep, every time he traded his crypto the IRS considered it taxable as a “sale or exchange” of property.

Maybe it is not that bad. Maybe he only traded two or three times and can easily pay the taxes from his $125 grand.

He estimates his 2017 taxes to be around $400 grand.

Seems a bit heavy to me, but let’s continue.

Does the IRS know about him?

Yep. Coinbase issued him a 1099-K reporting his crypto trades. Think of a 1099-K as the equivalent of a broker reporting your stock trades on a 1099-B.

He argues that he reinvested all his trades. He never took a personal check.

I don’t think he quite understands how taxes work. Try telling the IRS that you did not have taxable income upon the sale of your Apple stock because you left all the money in your brokers’ account.

He says that he reached out to a tax attorney – one who specializes in crypto.

I am glad that he sought professional help, whether attorney, CPA or EA.

I however doubt that the attorney’s crypto expertise is going to move the needle much. What he needs is a someone with expertise in IRS procedure, as he is rushing toward an installment plan, a partial pay or offer in compromise.

After all, he is not paying the $400 grand in taxes with what he has left.

Making A Comeback: Section 1202 Stock

We are going tax-geek for this post.

Let’s blame Daryl, a financial advisor with Wells Fargo. He has been studying and asking about a particular Code section.

Code Section 1202.

This section has been a dud since 1993, but last year’s changes to the tax Code have resurrected it. I suspect we will be reading more about Section 1202 in the future.

What sets up the tension is the ongoing debate whether it is better to do business as a “C” corporation (which pays its own tax) or an “S” corporation (whose income drops onto its owners’ individual returns, who pay tax on the business as well as their other personal income).

There are two compelling factors driving the debate:

(1) The difference between corporate and individual tax rates.

For most of my career, top-end individual tax rates have exceeded top-end corporate tax rates. Assuming one is pushing the pedal to the floor, this would be an argument to be a C corporation.

(2)  Prior to 1986, there was a way to liquidate (think “sell”) a C corporation and pay tax only once. The 1986 tax act did away with this option (except for highly specialized – and usually reorganization-type – transactions). Since 1986 a C corporation has to pay tax when it liquidates (because it sold or is considered to have sold its assets). Its assets then transfer to its shareholders, who again pay tax (because they are considered to have sold their stock).

Factor (2) has pretty much persuaded most non-Fortune-500 tax advisors to recommend S corporations, to the extent that most of the C corporations many tax practitioners have worked with since 1986 have been legacy C’s. LLC’s have also been competing keenly with S corporations, and advisors now debate which is preferable. I prefer the settled tax law of S corporations, whereas other advisors emphasize the flexibility that LLCs bring to the picture.

Section 1202 applies to C corporations, and it gives you a tax break when you sell the stock. There are hoops, of course:

(1)   It must be a domestic (that is, a U.S.) C corporation.

(2)   You must acquire the stock when initially issued.

a.     Meaning that you did not buy the stock from someone else.

b.    It does not mean only the first issuance of stock. It can be the second or third issuance, as long as one meets the $ threshold (discussed below) and you are the first owner.

(3)   Corporate assets did not exceed $50 million when the stock was issued.

a.     Section 1202 is more of a west-Coast than Midwest phenomenon. That $50 million makes sense when you consider Silicon Valley.

b.    If you get cute and use a series of related companies, none exceeding $50 million, the tax Code will combine you into one big company with assets over $50 million.

c.     By the way, the $50 million is tested when the stock is issued, not when you sell the stock. Sell to Google for a zillion dollars and you can still qualify for Section 1202.

(4)   You have owned the stock for at least five years.

(5)   Not every type of business will qualify.

a.     Generally speaking, professional service companies – think law, health, accounting and so on – will not qualify. There are other lines of businesses – like restaurants and motels - that are also disqualified.

(6)   Upon a qualifying sale, a shareholder can exclude the larger of (a) $10 million or (b) 10 times the shareholder’s adjusted basis in the stock.

Folks, a minimum $10 million exclusion? That is pretty sweet.

I mentioned earlier that Section 1202 has – for most of its existence – been a dud. How can $10 million be a dud?

Because it hasn’t always been $10 million. For a long time, the exclusion was 50% of the gain, and one was to use a 28% capital gains rate on the other 50%. Well, 50% of 28% is 14%. Consider that the long-term capital gains rate was 15%, and tax advisors were not exactly doing handstands over a 1% tax savings.

In 2010 the exclusion changed to 100%. Advisors became more interested.

But it takes five years to prime this pump, meaning that it was 2015 (and more likely 2016 or 2017) by the time one got to five years.

What did the 2017 tax bill do to resurrect Section 1202?

It lowered the “C” corporation tax rate to 21%.

Granted, it also added a “passthrough” deduction so that S corporations, LLCs and other non-C-corporation businesses remained competitive with C corporations. Not all passthrough businesses will qualify, however, and – in an instance of dark humor – the new law refers to (5)(a) above to identify those businesses not qualifying for the passthrough deduction.

COMMENT: And there is a second way that Section 1202 has become relevant. A tax advisor now has to consider Section 1202 – not only for the $10-million exclusion – but also in determining whether a non-C business will qualify for the new 20% passthrough deduction. Problem is, there is next to no guidance on Section 1202 because advisors for years DID NOT CARE about this provision. We were not going to plan a multiyear transaction for a mere 1% tax savings.

Nonetheless 21% is a pretty sweet rate, especially if one can avoid that second tax. Enter Section 1202.

If the deal is sweet enough I suppose the $10 million or 10-times-adjusted-basis might not cover it all.

Good problem to have.

TurboTax and Penalties

I am looking at a case that deals with recourse and nonrecourse debt.

Normally I expect to find a partnership with multiple pages of related entities and near-impenetrable transactions leading up to the tax dispute.

This case had to do with a rental house. I decided to read through it.

Let’s say you buy a house in northern Kentucky. You will have a “recourse” mortgage. This means that – if you default – the mortgage company has the right to come after you for any shortfall if sales proceeds are insufficient to pay-off the mortgage.

This creates an interesting tax scenario in the event of foreclosure, as the tax Code sees two separate transactions.

EXAMPLE:

          The house cost               $290,000

          The mortgage is             $270,000

          The house is worth        $215,000

If the loan is recourse, the tax Code first sees the foreclosure:

          The house is worth        $215,000

          The house cost               (290,000)

          Loss on foreclosure       ($75,000)

The Code next sees the cancellation of debt:

          The mortgage is worth  $270,000

          The house is worth        (215,000)

          Cancellation of debt       $55,000

If the house is your principal residence, the loss on foreclosure is not tax deductible. The cancellation-of-debt income is taxable, however.

But all is not lost. Here is the Code:

§ 108 Income from discharge of indebtedness.

(a)  Exclusion from gross income.

(1)  In general.

Gross income does not include any amount which (but for this subsection) would be includible in gross income by reason of the discharge (in whole or in part) of indebtedness of the taxpayer if-

(E)  the indebtedness discharged is qualified principal residence indebtedness which is discharged-

(i)  before January 1, 2018, or

(ii)  subject to an arrangement that is entered into and evidenced in writing before January 1, 2018.

The Section 108(a)(1)(E) exclusion will save you from the $55,000 cancellation-of-debt income, if you got it done by or before the December 31, 2017 deadline.

Let’s change the state. Say that you bought your house in California.

That loan is now nonrecourse. That lender cannot hound you the way he/she could in Kentucky.

The taxation upon cancellation of a nonrecourse loan is also different. Rather than two steps, the tax Code now sees one.

Using the same example as above, we have:

          The mortgage is             $270,000

          The house cost               (290,000)

          Loss on foreclosure       ($20,000)  

Notice that the California calculation does not generate cancellation-of-debt income. As before, the loss is not deductible if it is from your principal residence.

Back to the case.

A married couple had lived in northern California and bought a residence. They moved to southern California and converted the residence to a rental. The housing crisis had begun, and the house was not worth what they had paid.

Facing a loss of over $300 grand, they got Wells Fargo to agree to a short sale. Wells Fargo then sent them a 1099-S for taking back the house and a 1099-C for cancellation-of-debt income.

Seems to me Wells Fargo sent paperwork for a sale in Kentucky. Remember: there can be no cancellation-of-debt income in California.

The taxpayer’s spouse prepared the return. She was an attorney, but she had no background in tax. She spent time on TurboTax; she spent time reading form instructions and other sources. She did her best. You know she was reviewing that recourse versus nonrecourse thing, as well as researching the effect of a rental. She may have researched whether the short sale had the same result as a regular foreclosure.

COMMENT: There was enough here to use a tax professional.

They filed a return showing around $7,000 in tax.

The IRS scoffed, saying the correct tax was closer to $76,000.

There was a lot going on here tax-wise. It wasn’t just the recourse versus nonrecourse thing; it was also resetting the “basis” in the house when it became a rental.

There is a requirement in tax law that property convert at lower of (adjusted) cost or fair market value when it changes use, such as changing from a principal residence to a rental. It can create a no-man’s land where you do not have enough for a gain, but you simultaneously have too much for a loss. It is nonintuitive if you haven’t been exposed to the concept.

Here is the Court:

This is the kind of conundrum only tax lawyers love. And it is not one we've been able to find anywhere in any case that involves a short sale of a house or any other asset for that matter. The closest analogy we can find is to what happens to bases in property that one person gives to another.”

Great. She had not even taken a tax class in law school, and now she was involved with making tax law.

Let’s fast forward. The IRS won. They next wanted penalties – about $14,000.

The Court didn’t think penalties were appropriate.

… the tax issues they faced in preparing their return for 2011 were complex and lacked clear answers—so much so that we ourselves had to reason by analogy to the taxation of sales of gifts and consider the puzzle of a single asset with two bases to reach the conclusion we did. We will not penalize taxpayers for mistakes of law in a complicated subject area that lacks clear guidance …”

They owed about $70 grand in tax but at least they did not owe penalties.

And the case will be remembered for being a twist on the TurboTax defense. Generally speaking, relying on tax software will not save you from penalties, although there have been a few exceptions. This case is one of those exceptions, although I question its usefulness as a defense. The taxpayers here strode into the tax twilight zone, and the Court decided the case by reasoning through analogy. How often will that fact pattern repeat, allowing one to use this case against the imposition of future penalties?

The case for the homegamers is Simonsen v Commissioner 150 T.C. No. 8.

Cincinnati Reds, Tax And Bobbleheads

Did you hear about the recent tax case concerning the Cincinnati Reds?

It has to do with sales and use tax. This area is considered dull, even by tax pros, who tend to have a fairly high tolerance for dull. But it involves the Reds, so let’s look at it.

The Reds bought promotional items - think bobbleheads - to give away. They claimed a sales tax exemption for resale, so the vendor did not charge them sales tax.

Ohio now wants the Reds to pay use tax on the promotional items.

COMMENT: Sales tax and use tax are (basically) the same thing, varying only by who is remitting the tax. If you go to an Allen Edmunds store and buy dress shoes, they will charge you sales tax and remit it to Ohio on your behalf. Let’s say that you buy the shoes online and are not charged sales tax. You are supposed to remit the sales tax you would have paid Allen Edmunds to Ohio, except that now it is called a use tax. 

The amount is not insignificant: about $88 grand to the Reds, although that covers 2008 through 2010.

What are the rules of the sales tax game?

The basic presumption is that every sale of tangible personal property and certain services within Ohio is taxable, although there are exemptions and exceptions. Those exemptions and exceptions had better be a tight fit, as they are to be strictly construed.

The Reds argued the following:

·      They budget their games for a forthcoming season in determining ticket prices.

·      All costs are thrown into a barrel: player payroll, stadium lease, Marty Brennaman, advertising, promotional items, etc.

·      They sell tickets to the games. Consequently, the costs – including the promotional items – have been resold, as their cost was incorporated in the ticket price.

·      Since there is a subsequent sale via a game ticket, the promotional items were purchased for resale and qualify for an exemption.

Ohio took a different tack:

·      The sale of tangible personal property is not subject to sales tax only if the buyer’s purpose is to resell the item to another buyer. Think Kroger’s, for example. Their sole purpose is to resell to you.

·      The purpose of the exemption is meant to delay sales taxation until that final sale, not to exempt the transaction from sales tax forever. There has to be another buyer.

·      The bobbleheads and other promotions were not meant for resale, as evidenced by the following:

o   Ticket prices remain the same throughout the season, irrespective of whether there is or isn’t a promotional giveaway.

o   Fans are not guaranteed to receive a bobblehead, as there is normally a limited supply.

o   Fans may not even know that they are purchasing a bobblehead, as the announcement may occur after purchase of the ticket.

The Ohio Board of Appeals rejected the Reds argument.

The critical issue was “consideration.”

Let’s say that you went to a game but arrived too late to get a bobblehead. You paid the same price as someone who did get a bobblehead, so where is the consideration? Ohio argued and the Board agreed that the bobbleheads were not resold but were distributed for free. There was no consideration. Without consideration one could not have a resale.

Here is the Board:

The evidence in the record supports our conclusion that the cost of the subject promotional items is not included in the ticket price.”

The Reds join murky water on the issue of promotional items. The Kansas City Royals, for example, do not pay use tax on their promotional items, but the Milwaukee Brewers do. Sales tax varies state by state.

Then again perhaps the Reds will do as the Cavaliers did: charge higher ticket prices for promotional giveaway games.

This is (unsurprisingly) heading to the Ohio Supreme Court. We will hear of The Cincinnati Reds, LLC v Commissioner again.