Abusing A Tax-Exempt

I am looking at a tax-exempt case that went off the rails.

There are rules in the tax-exempt area to encourage one to keep their nose clean. The rules can be different depending on whether the entity is a private foundation or not. The reason is that a foundation is generally considered more susceptible to influence than a “classic” tax-exempt, such as a 501(c)(3), as a foundation generally has a smaller pool of donors.

A doctor (Dr O) organized a 501(c)(3) called American Medical Missionary Care, Inc (AMMC) in 1998. In 2000 it applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS. Its exempt purpose was to operate a clinic in Michigan providing medical examination and treatment for individuals unable to afford such services.

Sounds like a great cause to me.

Dr O served as president. His spouse (Mrs O) served on the board of directors as well as secretary and treasurer over the years.

In 2013 AMMC filed its Form 990 reporting compensation of $26,000 paid Dr O and $21,000 paid Mrs O.

AMMC however issued W-2s of $26,000 apiece.

There is a mistake here, but it is not necessarily a big deal. They should tighten down the numbers going forward, though.

On its 2014 Form 990 AMMC reported no compensation to Dr or Mrs O.

Seems odd. Compensation does not tend to turn off and on like a spigot.

Meanwhile, Dr O had gotten in trouble with the Michigan Board of Medicine in 2014. He was required to pay a significant amount of money and also relinquished his medical license. Dr O eventually returned to Nigeria in 2017, leaving his wife in the United States.

The IRS selected the nonprofit for examination.

The revenue agent dug around the AMMC’s various bank accounts for 2014 and found biweekly checks to Mrs O of $1,000 each. There were also certified checks ranging from $6,000 to $10,000. In all, Dr and Mrs O had received cash, checks and money orders from AMMC totaling approximately $130 thousand.

The 990 showed the $130 grand as a loan receivable from Dr O.

Oh please.

Dr O got into trouble and needed cash. He turned to AMMC because that is where the money was. A loan implies an ability to repay and intent to collect, all within the normal course and conduct of business. I seriously doubt that is what we had here.

Dr O and Mrs O had outsized influence over the (c)(3). Who was going to tell them no, much less point out that making loans to officers and board members is minefield territory in the tax Code?

The IRS revenue agent felt the same way and assessed a tier-one penalty.

Penalties in the nonprofit area can be a bit different. There can be penalties on an individual or on the entity itself, for example. The more severe penalties revolve around “excess benefit” transactions and “disqualified persons,” which are – as you might suspect – people with substantial authority or influence over the tax-exempt. Dr O organized AMMC years before and served as its president. He was a poster child for a disqualified person.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500. It also revoked the exempt status of AMMC.

Let’s walk through the tiered penalty.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500 on the O's. This is 25% of the $130,000 that Dr and Mrs O drew in 2014. The reason I call it a “tier-one” is that there is a possible “tier two.” To avoid a tier-two, one has to return the money to the tax-exempt.

What happens if one fails to return the money?

The penalty goes to 200%.

This is one of the severest penalties in the tax Code, and Congress intended it that way. Years ago, the only recourse the IRS had was to revoke the entity’s exempt status. Congress felt that this response was a sledgehammer, and it instead created a set of “intermediate” penalties, shifting the burden to the person benefiting from the transaction. With that as background, Congress did not consider 200 percent as excessive.

So the O’s now had another penalty of $230,000.

COMMENT: 200 percent of $130,000 is $260,000, not $230,000. The Court made some tweaks which need not concern us here.

You may be wondering why Dr O would care, if he was safely ensconced in Nigeria.

For one, his wife was still in the United States.

And she was on the Board. She had served as secretary and treasurer. She was a disqualified person in her own right. She was also considered to be a disqualified person by being married to a disqualified person. She was not getting out of this snare.

Mrs O was going to get hammered.

She fielded a last stand:

(1) She argued that much of the money was distributed to needy people to help with rent and utilities, after-school programs for the kids and so forth.

Problem was: she had no records to substantiate any of this. She had not drawn checks in a manner commensurate with this storyline, although she testified that she would hold and re-deposit the certified checks back into the (c)(3) if and as needed. The Court was – by this point – quite skeptical of anything she had to say.

(2)  She argued that much of the money represented compensation to either her or both Dr O and her.

This was her best argument, but unfortunately this route was closed to her.

You see, AMMC should have issued W-2s if it intended for the monies to represent compensation. The tax-exempt did not issue W-2s for 2014. It did not even authorize compensation in its minutes. Some things have to be done currently, and this is one of those things.

A W-2 (or 1099) would have saved a penalty equal to twice its face amount. That is, a $26,000 W-2 to Dr O would have saved a penalty of $52,000 ($26,000 times 200%).

It was a worst-case scenario for the O’s.

Then again, they abused AMCC. That money did not belong to the O’s. It belonged to the (c)(3). The exempt purpose of AMMC was to assist the poor with access to medical care, not to enrich its founding family after the loss of a medical license.

Our case this time was Ononuju v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-94.

 

A BallPark Tax

I am a general tax practitioner, but even within that I set limits. There are certain types of work that I won’t do, if I do not do enough of it to (a) keep the technical issues somewhat fresh in my mind and (b) warrant the time it would require to remain current.

Staying current is a necessity. The tax landscape is littered with landmines.

For example, did you know there is a tax to pay for Nationals Park, the home to the Washington Nationals baseball team?

I am not talking about a sales tax or a fee when you buy a ticket to the game.

No, I mean that you have to file a return and pay yet another tax.

That strikes me as cra-cra.

At least the tax excludes business with gross receipts of less than $5 million sourced to the District of Columbia.

That should protect virtually all if not all of my clients. I might have a contractor go over, depending on where their jobs are located in any given year.

Except ….

Let’s go to the word “source.”

Chances are you think of “source” as actually being there. You have an office or a storefront in the District. You send in a construction work crew from Missouri. Maybe you send in a delivery truck from Maryland or Virginia.

I can work with that.

I am reading that the District now says that “source” includes revenues from services delivered to customers in the District, irrespective where the services are actually performed.

Huh?

What does that mean?

If I structure a business transaction for someone in D.C., am I expected to file and pay that ballpark tax? I am nowhere near D.C. I should at least get a courtesy tour of the stadium. And a free hot dog. And pretzel.

COMMENT: My case is a bad example. I have never invoiced a single client $5 million in my career. If I had, I might now be the Retired Cincinnati Tax Guy.

I can better understand the concept when discussing tangible property. I can see it being packaged and shipped; I can slip a barcode on it. There is some tie to reality.

The concept begins to slip when discussing services. What if the company has offices in multiple cities?  What if I make telephone calls and send e-mails to different locations? What if a key company person I am working with in turn works remotely? What if the Browns go to the Super Bowl?

The game de jour with state (and District) taxation is creative dismemberment of the definition of nexus.

Nexus means that one has sufficient ties to and connection with a state (or District) to allow the state (or District) to impose its taxation. New York cannot tax you just because you watched an episode of Friends. For many years it meant that one had a location there. If not a location, then perhaps one had an employee there, or kept inventory, or maybe sent trucks into the state for deliveries. There was something – or someone – tangible which served as the hook to drag one within the state’s power to tax.

That definition doesn’t work in an economy with Netflix, however.

The Wayfair decision changed the definition. Nexus now means that one has sales into the state exceeding a certain dollar threshold.

While that definition works with Netflix, it can lead to absurd results in other contexts. For example, I recently purchased a watch from Denmark. Let’s say that enough people in Kentucky like and purchase the same or a similar watch. Technically, that means the Danish company would have a Kentucky tax filing requirement, barring some miraculous escape under a treaty or the like.

What do you think the odds are that a chartered accountant in Denmark would have a clue that Kentucky expects him/her to file a Kentucky tax return?

Let’s go back to what D.C. did. They took nexus. They redefined nexus to mean sales into the District.  They redefined it again to include the sale of services provided by an out-of-District service provider.

This, folks, is bad tax law.

And a tax accident waiting to happen.

A Church Contribution Story: Durden

Our next two blogs discuss tax fails involving charitable contributions.

What each has in common is congressional resolve to address an area considered subject to tax abuse. How so? How many times has someone overvalued a Goodwill clothing donation, for example? Congress therefore placed restrictions – primarily documentation requirements – on one’s ability to deduct contributions. The general tax rule is simple: no documentation equals no deduction.  The key is to understand what Congress considers documentation, as your understanding may be different from theirs.

Let’s talk about Durden.

David and Veronda Durden contributed $25,171 in 2007 to the Nevertheless Community Church. With the exception of five checks (totaling $317), all checks were over $250.

FIRST RULE: Under Code Section 170(f)(8)(A), no deduction is allowed for any contribution of $250 or more unless taxpayer has contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the charity organization that meets specified requirements.

The Durdens cleared the first rule, as they had a letter from the church dated January 10, 2008.

SECOND RULE: Under Code Section 170(f)(8)(B), the charity must state in the acknowledgment whether it provided any goods or services as consideration for the contributed property or cash. If so, it must include a description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods or services provided.

There is a problem: the church did not include language “no goods and services have been provided” in their letter.

The Durdens obtained a second letter dated June 21, 2009 containing the same information found in the first letter, plus a statement that no goods or services were provided in exchange for the contributions.

THIRD RULE: Code Section 170(f)(8)(C) considers the acknowledgment as contemporaneous if obtained on or before the earlier when the tax return is due or the actual filing date.

The IRS disallowed all but $317 of the charitable deduction for insufficient documentation. The Durdens go to Tax Court. Their argument is reasonable: we substantially complied with the spirit of the law. We had a letter. It might not be exactly the letter the IRS wanted, but we had a letter. When the IRS wanted more, we got them more. The IRS went too far in disallowing the deduction when everyone knows we gave to the church. We even showed them cancelled checks.  The wording in Code Section 170(f)(8)(C) is only one way – a safe harbor maybe – of meeting the “contemporaneous” standard.

The Tax Court disagreed. It noted that Congress intended to tighten the rules in this area and placed specific language in the Code requiring and defining “contemporaneous.” This was not the IRS’ doing; it was Congress’ doing.  The Court in the past had been lenient in cases involving substantial procedural compliance. This was not procedure. This was legislative compliance, and the matter was outside the Court’s hands.

The Durdens did not have the correct letter when they filed their return. That is the last possible date according to the law. There is no deduction. The Court did let them deduct $317, however. Since those individual contributions were under $250, those didn’t require a letter.

MY TAKE: I can understand Congress passing near-incomprehensible tax law to address complex and sophisticated tax issues. Those taxpayers are likely to have expert tax advisors and planners. This is not one of those issues. This is someone donating to a church. I strongly disapprove of routine activities triggering tax rules that make no sense to an average person.  

Congress should have included a “sanity” clause in this statute. They could have given the IRS discretion to accept “other but equal” documentation. True, the IRS could refuse to do so, but at least there would be a chance that the IRS – or a court reviewing the IRS – could blunt the capriciously sharp edge of this tax law.

Next time we will talk about Mohamed.

1099s and Weatherly v Commissioner

There are two new questions on your income tax returns this year:

·         Did you make any payments in 2011 that would require you to file Form(s) 1099?

·         If “Yes,” did you file or will you file all required Forms 1099?

Several points come immediately to mind:

·         Remember that you are signing this return as being “true, correct and complete” to the best of your knowledge.

·         I, as the preparer, have to exercise due diligence by also asking you this question.

·         What are the consequences of answering “No?”

Congress will be unsatisfied until it has combed your sofa cushions for loose change. This pressure unfortunately passes down to the IRS, and we are seeing the results in OVDI, FATCA, automated collections and taxpayer liens. Obviously they believe there is money to be found here.

This brings us to Jeremiah Weatherly v. Commissioner (TC Memo 2011-206). It’s a tax case having to do with Forms 1099.

JW operated a bailiff consulting business. These are people who perform evictions and serve process, for example. He hired daily workers to help out. He must have been doing relatively well, as he reported $177,925 of Contract Labor on his 2005 return.

He got audited. The IRS wanted his Forms 1099. JW provided the IRS with 64 Forms 1099.There was a problem, however. JW had not filed the Forms with the IRS.

                OBSERVATION: Really, JW?

The IRS now had no confidence in the 64 Forms 1099, so they requested JW obtain and submit Forms 4669 from the 64 people. Form 4669 requires the payee to report the amount of the payment and where it is reported on his/her return.

OBSERVATION: This is not going to go over well.

JW’s response rate was pretty much what you would expect: he got eight replies. The IRS bounced 2 of them, as the social security numbers were invalid. With the remaining six, JW was able to document $25,115 of his Contract Labor expense. The IRS simply disallowed the remaining $152,810.

JW appealed pro se to the Tax Court. He got schooled. Tax law and long-standing tax doctrine require a taxpayer to maintain records sufficient to establish the amounts of allowable deductions and enable the Commissioner to determine the correct tax liability. This is a two-step requirement: your records have to be good enough for you to prepare a correct return AND to allow someone to double-check your work.

The Tax Court asked for JW’s books and records. Nothing. The Tax Court asked for other evidence to substantiate that these amounts were actually paid. Nothing. The Court then wanted JW to testify about his bookkeeping practices. Nothing. Frustrated, the Court held for the IRS. JW got charged with additional tax of $67,436 and penalties of $29,425.

What can we learn from JW?

Let’s admit, JW should never have represented himself. All he accomplished was to aggravate the Court. It is possible that another taxpayer – more responsive and attuned – could have obtained a different result. The Court did try to help JW, even alluding to the Cohan rule where it will allow estimates as long as the Court is convinced that there truly was an expenditure.

Nonetheless, we can see the position the IRS can and may take if one fails to file Forms 1099. Perhaps your bookkeeping practices are different from JW’s, and you could have provided the Court with substantial and satisfactory alternative documentation. However remember that you would have engaged – and paid – a tax CPA to represent you at audit and Appeals before even arriving at the Court. And you would still be at the Court’s mercy.

This process seems expensive to me. Here is another idea: issue 1099s, especially since you are now required to affirmatively respond to the new questions on your 2011 tax returns. There is now one more reason for the Court to turn you down: you lied when you answered “No” to the first question.