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.

A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.

A Ghost Preparer Story

 

I came across a ghost preparer last week.

I rarely see that.

A ghost preparer is someone who prepares a tax return for compensation (me, for example) but who does not sign the return.

This is a big no-no in tax practice. The IRS requires all paid tax preparers to obtain an identification number (PTIN, pronounced “pea tin”) and disclose the same on returns. The IRS can track, for example, how many returns I signed last year via my PTIN. There are also mandates that come with the CPA license.

Why does the ghost do this?

You know why.

It started with a phone call.

Client: What do you know about the employee retention credit?

Me: Quite a bit. Why do you ask?”

Client: I had someone prepare refunds, and I want to know if they look right.”

You may have heard commercials for the ERC on the radio These credits are “for up to $26,000 per employee” but you “must act now.”

Well, yes, it can be up to $26,000 per employee. And yes, one should act soon, because the ERC involves amending tax returns. Generally, one has only three years to amend a return before the tax period closes. This is the statute of limitations, and it is both friend and foe. The IRS cannot chase you after three years, but likewise you cannot amend after the same three years.

The ERC was in place for most of 2020 and for 9 months of 2021. If you are thinking COVID stimulus, you are right. The ERC encouraged employers to retain employees by shifting some of the payroll cost onto the federal government.

Me: I thought you did not qualify for the ERC because you could not meet the revenue reduction.” 

         Client: They thought otherwise.”

         Me: Send it to me.”

He did.

I saw refunds of approximately $240,000 for 2020. I also remember our accountant telling me that the client could not meet the revenue reduction test for 2020. Revenues went down, yes, but not enough to qualify for the credit.

COMMENT: There are two ways to qualify for the ERC: revenue reduction or the mandate. The revenue reduction is more objective, and it requires a decrease in revenue from 2019 (50% decrease for the 2020 ERC; 20% decrease for the 2021 ERC). The second way – a government COVID mandate hobbling the business – does not require revenue reduction but can be more difficult to prove. A restaurant experiencing COVID mandates could prove mandate relatively easily. By contrast, a business experiencing supply-chain issues probably experienced COVID mandates indirectly. The business would likely need its suppliers’ cooperation to show how government mandates closed their (i.e., the suppliers’) doors.

I had our accountant locate the 2020 accounting records. We reviewed the revenue reduction.

The client did not make it.

I called.

Me: Did they say that you qualified under the mandate test?"

         Client: They said I qualified under revenue reduction."

         Me: But you don’t. How could they not tell?"

         Client: Because they never looked at it."

         Me: Then how ….?"

Client: They asked if I had a revenue decline and I said yes. They took my answer and ran with it."

Why would someone do this?

Because that someone works on commission.

There is incentive to maximize the refund, whether right or not.

I was looking at a refund of almost a quarter million dollars.

That would have been a nice commission.

No, the client is not filing those amended returns. He realized the con. He also realized that he had no argument upon IRS audit. He would have to return the money, plus whatever penalties they would layer on. I could no more save him than I could travel to Mars.

He now also understands why they never signed those returns.

Ghosts.

Thinking About Private Foundations

 

I’ll admit it: last month (October) left room for improvement. An unresponsive IRS and a dearth of hirable accounting talent is taking its toll here at Command Center. I am hoping that recent hiring at the IRS will take the edge off the former; I see little respite from the latter, however.

This month many of our nonprofit returns are due. That is OK, as those do not approach the volume of individual returns we prepare.

I find myself thinking about private foundations.

I would set-up a family foundation if I came into megabucks. It would, among other things, allow the CTG family to aggregate, review, discuss and decide our charitable giving as a family unit.  

But I have also been in practice long enough to see family foundations misused. A common-enough practice is to hire an … unmotivated … family member as a foundation employee.  

Let’s talk about the self-dealing rules and foundations.

First, let’s clarify what we mean when we use the term private (or family) foundation.

It is a charity – like the March of Dimes or United Way – but not as much. Think of foundations as the milk chocolate to the public charity dark chocolate. The dark chocolate is – let’s be frank – the better chocolate. Contributions to both are tax deductible, but there are restrictions on the private foundation that do not exist for a public charity. Why? Because a public charity tends to have a diverse and diffuse donor base. A private foundation can be one family – or one person. A private foundation can therefore be more disposed to get its nose in traps than a public charity.

Let’s introduce two terms: disqualified persons and self-dealing.

There are two main categories of disqualified persons. I will use the CTG Foundation (and its one donor – me) as an example.

·      Category One

o  A substantial contributor (that would be me)

o  Members of my family

o  A corporation, partnership or trust wherein I am at least a 35% owner

·      Category Two

o  Foundation directors and officers

o  Their families

A family foundation might keep everything in the family, in which case categories one and two are the same people. It does not have to be, though.

We have the players. Now we need an event, such as:

·      Buying or selling property from or to a disqualified (person)

·      Renting from or to a disqualified (unless from and for free)

·      Lending money to or borrowing from a disqualified (unless from and interest free)

·      Allowing disqualifieds to use the foundation’s assets or facilities, except on terms available to all members of the public

·      Paying or reimbursing unreasonable or unrelated expenses of a disqualified

·      Paying excessive compensation to a disqualified

In theory, that last one would discourage hiring the … unmotivated … family member. In reality … there is very little discouragement. The deterring effect of punishment is impacted by its likelihood: no likelihood = no deterrence.

A key thing about self-dealing transactions is that, as a generalization, the tax Code does not care whether the foundation is getting a “deal.”  Say that I own rental real estate in Pigeon Forge. I sell it to the CTG Foundation for pennies on the dollar. Financially, the foundation has received a significant benefit. Tax-wise, there is self-dealing. The Code says “NO” buying or selling to or from a disqualified. There is no modifying language for “a deal.”

So, what happens if there is self-dealing?

There are two tiers of penalties.

·      Tier One

o  A 10% annual penalty on the self-dealer. In our Pigeon Forge example, that would be me. If the violation is not cleaned-up quickly, the 10% applies every year until it is.

o  There may be a 5% penalty on a foundation manager who participated in the act of self-dealing, knowing it to be such. Again, the penalty applies annually.

·      Tier Two

o  The Code wants the foundation and disqualified to reverse and clean-up whatever they did. In that spirit, the penalty becomes severe if they blow it off:

§  The penalty on the self-dealer goes to 200%

§  The penalty on the foundation manager goes to 50%

You clearly want to avoid tier two.

What would impel the foundation to even report self-dealing and pay those penalties?

I like to think that the annual 990-PF preparation by a reputable accounting or law firm would provide motivation. I would immediately fire a private foundation client which entered into and refused to unwind a self-deal. I am more concerned about my reputation and licensure. I can always get another client.

Then there is the possibility of an IRS audit.

It happens. I was reading one where the private foundation made a loan to a disqualified. The disqualified never made payments or even paid interest, and this went on for so long that the statute of limitations expired. According to the IRS, it might not be able to get to those closed years for penalties, but it could force the foundation to increase the loan balance by the missed interest payments (even for closed tax years) when calculating penalties for the open years.

Yep, that is what got me thinking about private foundations.

For the home gamers, this time we discussed CCA 202243008.

Self-Renting a Big Green Egg

Sometimes tax law requires you to witness the torture of the language. Other times it herds you through a sequence of “except for” clauses, almost assuring that some future Court will address which except is taking exception.

And then you have the laughers.

I came across an article titled: Corporation’s self-leasing rental expense deduction denied.”

I was curious. We tax nerds have an exceptionally low threshold for curiosity.

Before reading the article, I anticipated that:

(1)  Something was being deducted

(2)  That something was rent expense

(3)  Something was being self-leased, whatever that means, and

(4)  Whatever it means, the deduction was denied.

Let us spend a little time on (3).

Self-lease (or self-rental) means that you are renting something to yourself or, more likely, to an entity that you own. It took on greater tax significance in 1986 when Congress, frustrated for years with tax shelters, created the passive activity (PAL) rules. The idea was to separate business activities between actually working (active/material participation) and living the Kennedy (passive activity).

It is not a big deal if all the activities are profitable.

It can be a big deal if some of the activities are unprofitable.

Let’s go back to the classic tax shelter. A high-incomer wants to shelter high income with a deductible tax loss.

Our high-incomer buys a partnership interest in a horse farm or oil pipeline or Starbucks. The high-incomer does not work at the farm/pipeline/Starbucks, of course. He or she is an investor.

In the lingo, he/she is passive in the activity.

Contrast that with whatever activity generates the high income. Odds are that he/she works there. We would refer to that as active or material participation.

The 1986 tax act greatly restricted the ability of the high-incomer to use passive losses to offset active/material participation income.

Every now and then, however, standard tax planning is flipped on its head. There are cases where the high-incomer wants more passive income.

In the name of all that is holy, why?

Has to do with passive losses. Let’s say that you had $10,000 in passive losses in 2015. You could not use them to offset other income, so the $10,000 carried over to 2016. Then to 2017. They are gathering dust.

If we could create passive income, we could use those passive losses.

How to create passive income?

Well, let’s say that you own a company.

You rent something to the company.

Let’s rent your car, your office-in-home or your Big Green EGG XXL.

Rent is passive income, right? The tax on our passive income will be zero, as the losses will mop up every dollar of income.

That is the “self-rental” the tax Code is after.

But it also triggers one of those “except for” rules: if the self-rental results in income, the income will not qualify as passive income.

All your effort was for naught. Thank you for playing.

Back to the article I was reading.

There is a doctor. He is the only owner of a medical practice. He used the second story of his house solely for the medical practice. Fair be fair, he had the practice pay him rent for that second floor.

I have no problem with that.

The Tax Court disallowed the corporation a rent deduction.

Whaaat? That makes no sense.

The purpose of the passive/active/material participation rules is not to deny a deduction altogether. The purpose is to delay the use of losses until the right type of income comes around.

What was the Tax Court thinking?

Easy. The doctor never reported the rental income on his personal return.

This case has nothing to do with self-rental rules. The Court simply was not permitting the corporation a deduction for rent that its shareholder failed to report as income.

The case for the home gamers is Christopher C.L. Ng M.D. Inc.

Bill And The Gig Economy

I am inclined to title this post “Bill.”

I have known Bill for years. He lost his W-2 job and has made up for it by taking one or two (or three) “independent contractor” gigs.

However, Bills get into tax trouble fast. Chances are they burned through savings upon losing the W-2 job. They turned to that 1099 gig when things got tight. At that point, they needed all the cash they could muster, meaning that replenishing savings had to wait.

The calendar turns. They come to see me for their taxes.

And we talk about self-employment tax for the first time.

You and I have FICA taken from our paycheck. We pay half and our employer pays half. It becomes almost invisible, like being robbed while on vacation.

Go self-employed and you have to pay both sides of FICA – now called self-employment tax – and it is anything but invisible. You are paying approximately 15% of what you make – off the top - and we haven’t even talked about income taxes.

You find yourself in a situation where you probably cannot pay – in full, at least – the tax from your first contractor/self-employment year.

We need a payment plan.

But there is a hitch.

What about taxes on your second contractor/self-employment year?

We need quarterly estimated taxes.

You start to question if I have lost my mind. You cannot even pay the first year, so how are you going to pay quarterly taxes for the second year?

And there you have Bill. Bills are legion.

We arrange a payment plan with the IRS.

You know what will likely blow-up a payment plan?

Filing another tax return with a large balance payable.

All right, maybe we can get the first and second year combined and work something out.

You know what will probably blow-up that payment plan?

Filing yet another tax return with a large balance payable.

Depending upon, the IRS will insist that you make estimated tax payments, as they have seen this movie too.

A taxpayer named Allen ran into that situation.

Allen owed big bucks – approximately $93,000.

The IRS issued an Intent to Levy.

He requested a CDP (Collections Due Process) hearing.

COMMENT: The CDP process was created by Congress in 1998 as a means to slow down a wild west IRS. The idea was that the IRS should not be permitted to move from compliance and assessment (receive your tax return; change your tax return) to collection (lien, levy and clear out your bank account) without an opportunity for you to have your day.  

Allen submitted financial information to the IRS. He proposed paying $500 per month.

The IRS reviewed the same information. They thought he could pay $809 per month.

COMMENT: You would be surprised what the IRS disallows when they calculate how much you can repay. You can have a pet, for example, but they will not allow veterinarian bills.

There was a hitch. Monthly payments of $809 over the remaining statute of limitations period would not sum to $93,000. The IRS can authorize this, however, and it is referred to as a partial-pay installment agreement (PPIA).

EXPLANATION: Any payment plan that does not pay the government in full over the remaining statutory collection period is referred to as a “partial pay.” The IRS looks at it more closely, as they know – going in – that they are writing-off some of the balance due.

The IRS settlement officer (SO) read the Internal Revenue Manual to say that a taxpayer could not receive a partial pay if he/she was behind on their current year estimated taxes. Allen of course was behind.

Allen said that he could not pay the estimate.

The SO closed the file.

Allen filed with the Tax Court.

Mind you, Allen was challenging IRS procedure and not the tax law itself. 

He had to show that the IRS “abused” its discretion.

It would be easier to get a rhinoceros on a park swing.

I get it, I really do. Take two SO’s. One denies you a partial pay because you are behind on estimated taxes; the other SO does not. That however is the meaning of “discretion.”

Did Allen’s SO “abuse” discretion?

The Tax Court did not think so.

Allen lost.

But there is something here I do not understand.

Why didn’t Allen make the estimated tax payment, revise his financial information (to show the depletion of cash) and forward the revised financials to the SO?

I presume that he couldn’t: he must not have had enough cash on hand.

If so, then abuse of discretion makes more sense to me: someone in Allen’s situation could NEVER meet that SO’s requirement for a payment plan.

Why?

Because he/she could never make that estimated tax payment.