Patents, Capital Gains and Hogitude

I have an acquaintance who has developed several patents.  He works for a defense contractor, so I suspect he has more opportunity than a tax CPA.

COMMENT: Did you know that tax advisors have tried to “patent” their tax planning? I suppose I could develop a tax shelter that creates partnership basis out of thin air and then pop the shelter to release a gargantuan capital loss to offset a more humongous capital gain…. Wait, that one has already been done. Fortunately, Congress passed legislation in 2011 effectively prohibiting such nonsense.

Let’s say that you develop a patent someday. Let’s also say that you have not signed away your rights as part of your employment package. Someone is now interested in your patent and you have a chance to ride the Money Train. You call to ask how about taxes.

Fair enough. It is not everyday that one talks about patents, even in a CPA firm.

Think of a patent as a rental property. Say you have a duplex. Every month you receive two rental checks. What type of income do you have?

You have rental income, which is to say you have ordinary income. It will run the tax brackets if you have enough income to make the run.

Let’s say you sell the duplex. What type of income do you have?

Let’s set aside depreciation recapture and all that arcana. You will have capital gains.

People prefer capital gains to ordinary income. Capital gains have a lower tax rate.

Patents present the same tax issue as your duplex. Collect on the patent - call it royalties, licensing fees or a peanut butter sandwich – and you have ordinary income. You can collect once or over a period of time; you can collect a fixed amount, a set percentage or on a sliding rate scale. It is all ordinary income.

Or you can sell the patent and have capital gains.

But you have to part with it, same as you have to part with the duplex. 

Intellectual property however is squishier than real estate, which make sense when you consider that IP exists only by force of law. You cannot throw IP onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Congress even passed a Code section just for patents:

§ 1235 Sale or exchange of patents.

(a)  General.

A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 1 year, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are-

(1)  payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee's use of the patent, or (2) contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.

The tax Code wants to see you part with “substantial rights,” which basically means the right to use and sell the patent. Limit such use – say by geography, calendar or industry line – and you probably have not parted with all substantial rights.

Bummer.

What if you sell to yourself?

It’s been tried, but good thinking, tax Padawan.

What if you sell to yourself but make it look like you did not?

This has potential. Your training is starting to kick-in.

Time to repeat the standard tax mantra:

pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered

Do not push the planning to absurd levels, unless you are Google or Apple and have teams of lawyers and accountants chomping on the bit to make the tax literature.

Let’s look at the Cooper case as an example of hogitude.

James Cooper was an engineer with more than 75 patents to his credit. He and his wife formed a company, which in turn entered into a patent commercialization deal with an independent third party.

So far, so good. The Coopers got capital gains.

But the deal went south.

The Coopers got their patents back.

Having been burned, Cooper was now leery of the next deal. Some sharp attorney advised him to set up a company, keep his ownership below 25% and bring in “independent” but trusted partners.

Makes sense.

Mrs. Cooper called her sister to if she wanted to help out. She did. In fact, she had a friend who could also help out.

Neither had any experience with patents, either creating or commercializing them.

Not fatal, methinks.

They both had full-time jobs.

So what, say I.

They signed checks and transferred funds as directed by the accountants and attorneys.

They did not pursue independent ways to monetize the patents, relying almost exclusively on Mr. Cooper.

This is slipping away a bit. There is a concept of “agency” in the tax Code. Do exactly what someone tells you and the Code may consider you to be a proxy for that someone.

Maybe the tax advisors should wrap this up and live to fight another day.

The sister and her friend transferred some of the patents back to Cooper.

Good.

For no money.

Bad.

The sister and her friend owned 76% of the company. They emptied the company of its income-producing assets, receiving nothing in return. Real business owners do not do that. They might have a career in the House of Representatives, though.

Meanwhile, Cooper quickly made a patent deal with someone and cleared six figures.

This mess wound up in Tax Court.

To his credit, Cooper argued that the Court should just look at the paperwork and not ask too many questions. Hopefully he did it with aplomb, and a tin man, scarecrow and cowardly lion by his side.

The Tax Court was having none of his nonsense about substantial rights and 25% and no-calorie donuts.

The Court decided he did not meet the requirements of Section 1235.

The Tax Court also sustained a “substantial understatement” penalty. They clearly were not amused. 

Cooper reached for hogitude. He got nothing.

Someone Fought Back Against Ohio – And Won

I admit it will be a challenge to make this topic interesting.

Let’s give it a shot.

Imagine that you are an owner of a business. The business is a LLC, meaning that it “passes-through” its income to its owners, who in turn take their share of the business income, include it with their own income, and pay tax on the agglomeration.

You own 79.29% of the business. It has headquarters in Perrysville, Ohio, owns plants in Texas and California, and does business in all states.

The business has made a couple of bucks. It has allowed you a life of leisure. You fly-in for occasional Board meetings in northern Ohio, but you otherwise hire people to run the business for you. You have golf elsewhere to attend to.

You sold the business. More specifically, you sold the stock in the business. Your gain was over $27 million.

Then you received a notice from Ohio. They congratulated you on your good fortune and … oh, by the way … would you send them approximately $675,000?

Here is a key fact: you do not live in Ohio. You are not a resident. You fly in and fly out for the meetings.

Why does Ohio think it should receive a vig?

Because the business did business in Ohio. Some of its sales, its payroll and its assets were in Ohio.

Cannot argue with that.

Except “the business” did not sell anything. It still has its sales, its payroll and its assets. What you sold were your shares in the business, which is not the same as the business itself.

Seems to you that Ohio should test at your level and not at the business level: are you an Ohio resident? Are you not? Is there yet another way that Ohio can get to you personally?

You bet, said Ohio. Try this remarkable stretch of the English language on for size:

ORC 5747.212 (B) A taxpayer, directly or indirectly, owning at any time during the three-year period ending on the last day of the taxpayer's taxable year at least twenty per cent of the equity voting rights of a section 5747.212 entity shall apportion any income, including gain or loss, realized from each sale, exchange, or other disposition of a debt or equity interest in that entity as prescribed in this section. For such purposes, in lieu of using the method prescribed by sections 5747.20 and5747.21 of the Revised Code, the investor shall apportion the income using the average of the section 5747.212 entity's apportionment fractions otherwise applicable under section 5733.05, 5733.056, or 5747.21 of the Revised Code for the current and two preceding taxable years. If the section 5747.212 entity was not in business for one or more of those years, each year that the entity was not in business shall be excluded in determining the average.

Ohio is saying that it will substitute the business apportionment factors (sales, payroll and property) for yours. It will do this for the immediately preceding three years, take the average and drag you down with it.

Begone with thy spurious nonresidency, ye festering cur!

To be fair, I get it. If the business itself had sold the assets, there is no question that Ohio would have gotten its share. Why then is it a different result if one sells shares in the business rather than the underlying assets themselves? That is just smoke and mirrors, form over substance, putting jelly on bread before the peanut butter.

Well, for one reason: because form matters all over the place in the tax Code. Try claiming a $1,000 charitable deduction without getting a “magic letter” from the charity; or deducting auto expenses without keeping a mileage log; or claiming a child as a dependent when you paid everything for the child – but the divorce agreement says your spouse gets the deduction this year. Yeah, try arguing smoke and mirrors, form and substance and see how far it gets you.

But it’s not fair ….

Which can join the list of everything that is not fair: it’s not fair that Firefly was cancelled after one season; it’s not fair that there aren’t microwave fireplaces; it’s not fair that we cannot wear capes at work.

Take a number.

Our protagonist had a couple of nickels ($27 million worth, if I recall) to protest. He paid a portion of the tax and immediately filed a refund claim for the same amount. 

The Ohio tax commissioner denied the claim.

COMMENT: No one could have seen that coming.

The taxpayer appealed to the Ohio Board of Tax Appeals, which ruled in favor of the Tax Commissioner.

The taxpayer then appealed to the Ohio Supreme Court.

He presented a Due Process argument under the U.S. Constitution.

And the Ohio Supreme Court decided that Ohio had violated Due Process by conflating our protagonist with a company he owned shares in. One was a human being. The other was a piece of paper filed in Columbus.

The taxpayer won.

But the Court backed-off immediately, making the following points:

(1)  The decision applied only to this specific taxpayer; one was not to extrapolate the Court’s decision;

(2)  The Court night have decided differently if the taxpayer had enough activity in his own name to find a “unitary relationship” with the business being sold; and

(3)  The statute could still be valid if applied to another taxpayer with different facts.

Points (1) and (3) can apply to just about any tax case.

Point (2) is interesting. The phrase “unitary relationship” simply means that our protagonist did not do enough in Ohio to take-on the tax aroma of the company itself. Make him an officer and I suspect you have a different answer. Heck, I suspect that one Board meeting a year would save him but five would doom him. Who knows until a Court tells us?

With that you see tax law in the making.

By the way, if this is you – or someone you know – you may want to check-out the case for yourself: Corrigan v Testa. Someone may have a few tax dollars coming back.

Testa, not Tesla

You Got Repossessed And The Bank Says You Have HOW MUCH Income?

I ran into a cancellation-of-debt issue recently.

You may know that – should the bank or finance company cancel or agree to reduce your debt – you will receive a Form 1099. The tax Code considers forgiveness of debt to be taxable income, as your “wealth” has increased - supposedly by an amount equal to the debt forgiven. There are exceptions to recognizing income if you are insolvent, file for bankruptcy and several other situations.

Let me give you a situation here at galactic headquarters:

Married couple. Husband is a doctor. Husband buys a boat. He puts both the boat and the promissory note in the wife’s name, presumably in case something happens and he gets sued. They divorce. It is understood that he will keep the boat and make the bank payment. He does not. The boat is repossessed and then sold for nickels on the dollar. Wife (who was never taken off the note) receives a Form 1099-C. She has cancellation-of-debt income, which is bad enough. To make it worse, income is inflated as the bank appears to have sold the boat at a fire-sale price.

Our client is – of course – the wife.

The person who signs on the note receives the 1099 and reports any cancellation-of-debt income. If the debt “belongs” to your spouse and not to you, you better have your name removed from the debt before you get out of divorce court. The IRS argues that – if you receive a 1099 that “belongs” to your ex-spouse - you should seek restitution by repetitioning the court. This makes it a divorce and not a tax issue. The IRS is not interested in a divorce issue.

It all sounds fine until real life.

The wife received a $100,000-plus Form 1099-C from that boat.

Let’s reflect on how she there:

(1)  The wife doesn’t have a boat and never did. Hubby wanted a boat. She signed on the note to keep hubby happy.

(2)  The wife’s divorce attorney forgot to get that note out of her name. Alternatively, the attorney could have seen to it that wife also wound up with the boat.

(3)  For whatever reason, husband let the boat be repossessed.

(4)  The bank issued a Form 1099-C to the wife. The income amount was simple math: the debt less whatever the bank received for the boat.

Let’s introduce real life:

• What if the bank makes a mistake?
• What if the bank virtually gives the boat away?

The IRS has traditionally been quite inflexible when it comes to these 1099s. If the bank reports a number, the IRS will run with it.

You can see the recipe for tragedy.

Fortunately, the IRS pressed too far with the 2009 Martin case.

In 1999 Martin bought a Toyota 4-Runner. He financed over $12 thousand, but stopped making payments when the loan amount was about $6,700. The Toyota was repossessed. He received a Form 1099-C for the $6,700.

… which meant that the bank received zero … zip… zilch… on the sale of the 4-Runner.

Doesn’t make sense, does it?

The IRS did not care. Go back to the lender and have them change the 1099, they said.

COMMENT: Sure. I am certain the lender will jump right on this.

Martin did care. He told the Court that the Toyota was worth roughly what he owed on it when repossessed, and that the 1099-C was incorrect.

Enter Code section 6201(d):

(d) Required reasonable verification of information returns In any court proceeding, if a taxpayer asserts a reasonable dispute with respect to any item of income reported on an information return filed with the Secretary under subpart B or C of part III of subchapter A of chapter 61 by a third party and the taxpayer has fully cooperated with the Secretary (including providing, within a reasonable period of time, access to and inspection of all witnesses, information, and documents within the control of the taxpayer as reasonably requested by the Secretary), the Secretary shall have the burden of producing reasonable and probative information concerning such deficiency in addition to such information return. 

Normally, the IRS has the advantage in a tax controversy and the taxpayer has the burden of proof. 

Code section 6201(d) provides that – if you can assert a reasonable dispute with respect to an item of income reported on an information return (such as a 1099-C), you can shift the burden of proof back to the IRS.

The Tax Court decided that Martin had shifted the burden of proof. The 4-Runner had to be worth something. The ball was back in the IRS’ court.

Granted, Martin was low-hanging fruit, as the bank reported no proceeds. The IRS should have known better than to take this case to court, but they did and we now have a way to challenge an erroneous 1099-C.  

In our wife’s case, I am thinking of getting a soft appraisal on the value of the boat when repossessed. If it is materially different from the bank’s calculation (which I expect), I am considering a Section 6201(d) challenge.

Why? Because my client should not have to report excess income if the bank gave the boat away. That was a bank decision, not hers. She had every reasonable expectation that the bank would demand and receive fair market value upon sale. Their failure to do so should not be my client’s problem. 

Which will be like poking the IRS bear.

But she has received a questionable $100,000-plus Form 1099-C. That bear is already chasing her.

Tax Break For Wealthy (Federal Government) People

Let's talk about a tax break; some may even call it a gimmick. It will never affect your or me, unless we go into the federal government.

Here is Code section 1043:

Sale of property to comply with conflict-of-interest requirements 

(a) Nonrecognition of gain

If an eligible person sells any property pursuant to a certificate of divestiture, at the election of the taxpayer, gain from such sale shall be recognized only to the extent that the amount realized on such sale exceeds the cost (to the extent not previously taken into account under this subsection) of any permitted property purchased by the taxpayer during the 60-day period beginning on the date of such sale.

(b) Definitions

For purposes of this section -

(1) Eligible person

The term "eligible person" means -

(A) an officer or employee of the executive branch, or a judicial officer, of the Federal Government, but does not mean a special Government employee as defined in section 202 of title 18, United States Code, and

(B) any spouse or minor or dependent child whose ownership of any property is attributable under statute, regulation, rule, judicial canon, or executive order referred to in paragraph (2) t a person referred to in subparagraph (A).

Let's say that you are pulling down several million dollars a year from your day job. You have the opportunity to head-up the EPA or the National Park Service. It is almost certain that your paycheck will shrink, and the Congressional committee investigating you may request you sell certain investments or other holdings to avoid conflict of interest concerns.

Folks, this is an uber-elite tax problem.

To ease your decision, the tax Code will allow you to sell your investments without paying any tax. To do so you are required to buy replacement securities within 60 days, and the non-taxed gain will reduce your basis in the new securities.

OBFUSCATION ALERT: To say it differently, your "basis" in the old securities sold will carry-over as your basis in the new securities.

By way, it is not necessary to have Congress to tell you to unload your investments. There is a more lenient "reasonably necessary" standard that might work for you. I am reasonably certain I could come up with some necessary argument so I would not pay tax.

While sweet, Section 1043 is not a complete escape clause. If you think about it, all you have done is delay the taxable gain until you sell the new securities. I suppose an escape clause is to die without selling, but I generally do not consider dying to be a viable tax strategy.

The numbers can add-up, though. It is estimated that Paul O'Neill, a former Treasury Secretary, sold approximately $100 million of Alcoa stock when he took the position. I do not know what the gain would have been (as we do not know the cost), but the tax he deferred must have been eye-opening.

By the way, you can get the same break by drawing a judicial appointment.

I do have a question: do you wonder why the politicos never mention Section 1043 whenever they rail against "tax breaks" used by wealthy people?

Nah, there is no wonder at all.

P&G, Coty And A Unicorn Named Morris

You may know that P&G is streamlining, selling off non-core lines of business. It just concluded a deal to sell 43 beauty brands, including Clairol and Max Factor, to Coty, Inc. The deal appears to be good for Coty, as it will double sales and transform Coty into one of the largest cosmetic companies in the world. P&G in turn receives $12.5 billion.

What makes it interesting to the tax planners is the structure of the deal: P&G is using a “reverse-Morris” structure. It combines a carve-out of unwanted assets (unwanted, in this case, by P&G) with a prearranged merger. The carve-out is nontaxable, but if you err with the merger the carve-out becomes taxable. This is a high stakes game, and woe unto you if the IRS determines that the merger was prearranged. The reverse Morris is designed to directly address a prearranged merger.

Let’s walk through it.

First, what is a “regular” Morris?

Let’s say that you own a successful and publicly-traded company (say Jeb). You have a line of business, which we shall call Lindsey. Someone (“Donald”) wants to buy Lindsey. Jeb could flat-out sell Lindsey, but the corporate taxes might be outrageous. Jeb could alternatively spinoff Lindsey to you, and you in turn could sell to Donald. That would probably be preferable.

Why?

Front and center is the classic tax issue with C corporations: double taxation. If Jeb sells, then Jeb would have corporate taxes. Granted, Jeb would distribute the after-tax proceeds to you, but then you would have individual taxes. The government might wind up being the biggest winner on the deal.

Forget that. Let’s spinoff Lindsey tax-free to you, and you sell to Donald. There would be one tax hit (yours), which is a big improvement over where we were a moment ago.

But you cannot do that.

You see, under regular corporate tax rules a tax-free merger with Donald within two years of a spinoff would trigger BAD tax consequences. We are talking about the spinoff being retroactively taxable to Jeb. Jeb will have to amend its tax return and write a big check. That is BAD.

I suppose you could tell Donald to take a hike for a couple of years while you reset the clock. Good luck with that.

You talk to your accountant (“Hillary”). She recommends that you have Jeb borrow a lot of money. You then drop Lindsey into a new subsidiary and spinoff new Lindsey to you. You leave the debt in Jeb. You then sell Jeb to Donald. Donald takes over the debt. He doesn’t care. Donald just offsets whatever he was going to pay you by that debt.

This is a Morris deal and Congress did not like it. It looked very much like a payday.

• The cash is in Lindsey
• The debt is in Jeb
• You sell Jeb
• You keep Lindsey
• You keep the money that is in Lindsey
• The government doesn’t get any money from anybody

The government was not getting its vig. Congress in response wrote a new section into the tax Code (Section 355(e)) which triggers gain if more than 50% control of either the parent or subsidiary changes hands. 

Yep, that pretty much will shut down a Morris deal. Donald wants more than 50% control. Donald is like that.

Now, Section 355(e) presented a challenge to the tax attorneys and CPAs. Think of it as an epic confrontation between a chromatic Great Wyrm and your 28th level paladin at the weekly Saturday night D&D game. The players were not backing down. No way.

So someone said “the deal will work if the buyer will accept less than 50% control.”

Eureka!

Let’s take our example above and introduce a different buyer (let’s call him Bernie). Bernie wants to buy Lindsey. Bernie is willing to accept less than 50%, as contrasted to that meanie Donald. Same as before, let’s drop Lindsey into a new subsidiary. New Lindsey borrows a lot of money and ships it to Jeb. New Lindsey, now laden with debt, is sold to Bernie. Bernie takes over the debt as part of the deal. When the dust settles, Bernie will own less than 50% of new Lindsey, which gets us out of the Section 355(e) dilemma.

You in turn keep Jeb and the cash.

And that is the reverse Morris. We sidestep Section 355(e) by not allowing more than 50% of either Jeb or Lindsey to change hands.

Why do we not see reverse Morris deals more often? There are three key reasons:

1. It requires a buyer that is smaller than the target, but not so small that it cannot do the deal. 
2. There will be new debt, likely significant. This raises the business risk associated with the deal, as the bank is going to want its money back.
3. The new company’s management and board may be an issue. After all, the buyer BOUGHT the company. It is not unreasonable that Bernie wants to control what he just bought. I would want to drive the new car I just bought and paid for.

The Reimann family of Germany owns approximately two-thirds of Coty. Even though Coty is acquiring less than 50% of the P&G subsidiary, the Reimann’s will own a large enough block of stock to have effective control. That must have helped make the reverse Morris attractive to Coty.

Reverse Morris deals are not unicorns, but there have been less than 40 of them to-date. That makes them rare enough that the tax specialists look up from their shoes when one trots out. P&G by itself has had three of them over the last ten or so years. Someone at P&G likes this technique.

The Sale of "American Pie"

Did you see where Don McLean sold his original manuscript for “American Pie” at Christie’s? He sold the work for $1.2 million, and it included his handwritten notes and deletions from the 1971-72 hit that – at 8 ½ minutes – was the longest song to ever top the U.S. charts.

The song of course is famous for its allusions. The “day the music died” refers to the death of Buddy Holly, whereas “the king” supposedly refers to Elvis Presley while “the jester on the sidelines” refers to Bob Dylan after his motorcycle accident. It became an anthem to disillusionment, to the sense of our best days being behind us and the ennui and hopelessness of a society being carted off in the wrong direction.

Sounds eerily contemporary.

He explained that he had forgotten he had the manuscript. He found it in the proverbial old box that had survived several moves. The sale allowed him to provide for his family, now and into the future.

Yes, $1.2 million will do that.

So what are the tax consequences from the sale of his manuscript?

We are talking about intellectual property and a subset we will call creative properties.

For the most part, self-created properties cannot be a capital asset in the hands of its creator. This causes a problem, as one requires a capital asset if one wants capital gains.

Take it a step further. If someone else owns the asset but its tax basis (that is, its cost for purposes of calculating gain or loss) is determined by reference to the creator’s basis, then it cannot be a capital asset.  How can this happen? Easy. You could gift the property, for example, or you could contribute the property to a family limited partnership. In either case the recipient will “take over” your basis in the creative property. Since the basis remains the same, it cannot be a capital asset.

The vocabulary gets tricky when discussing creative property. For example, an author (say Stephen King) may receive a “royalty.” Coincidently, find oil in your backyard and chances are an oil company will also pay you a royalty. Since the word “royalty” is the same, are the tax consequences the same?

The answer is no. If you write a book or score a movie soundtrack, that royalty is probably ordinary income to you. In fact, it is reported on Schedule C of your individual tax return, the same as your self-employment income from Uber. The oil royalty, on the other hand, is reported on Schedule E, along with rents. The Schedule C royalty will trigger self-employment tax. The Schedule E will not. 

OBSERVATION: We have discussed before that sometimes a word will have different meanings as it travels through the tax Code. Here is an example.

As always, there are exceptions. Let’s say you write one book and never write again. The IRS will likely consider that to be ordinary income but not self-employment income. Why? Supposedly it takes two or more books to establish that you are in the trade or business of writing books.

OBSERVATION: I am curious how the IRS would apply this standard to Harper Lee. She published, you will recall, To Kill a Mockingbird in 1960. It was only this year that she published her second work (Go Set a Watchman) – 55 years later. What do you think: is this self-employment income or not?

Remember when Michael Jackson bought the catalog of Beatles music? He bought it as a non-alternative investment, akin to stocks and bonds. Like a stock or bond, Michael Jackson would have had capital gains had he sold the catalog.

This created a fuss among songwriters. If they sold their own compositions, they would have ordinary and self-employment income. Introduce Michael Jackson and the tax result transmuted to capital gains.

So Congress passed Section 1221(b)(3), which incorporated a provision from the Songwriter’s Capital Gains Equity Act, promoted by the Nashville Songwriters Association International (NASI). It extended capital gains to self-created music owned for more than one year. It requires an election, and the songwriter/creative can elect for one musical composition and not for another. It does require the transfer of a musical composition or a copyright in the same; transfer something less and the result defaults to ordinary income.

NASI argued that the industry had changed. By the 1990s many music artists were acting as their own publishers or co-publishers, meaning they had some control over the exploitation of their songs. Gone were the days of Hank Williams and Bill Monroe, when songwriters sold their songs outright to music publishers with no right to ongoing income.

Congress listened.

Don McLean now has a tax option that he did not have years ago when he recorded “American Pie.” I suppose that there could be a scenario where it would be more advantageous to recognize the $1.2 million as ordinary income rather than as capital gains, but I cannot easily think of any that do not require low-probability tax considerations.

I would say he is making the election.