Social Security And A Claim Of Right

 

I am reading a Tax Court case.

I disagree with commentary on the case.

Let’s talk about Michael Smith and his 2022 tax return.

Michael worked a couple of jobs in 2022 and reported wages of $16 grand on his individual tax return. I see that one of his employers was New York City Transit. Michael would not have gotten far in New York with only $16 grand of earnings.

He applied for Social Security disability in April 2022.

I am thinking that he worked, got injured and applied for disability.

In November 2022, the SSA sent a letter saying that he qualified for SSI retroactive to March. He received SSI of $26,802 for the year.

And in April 2023 the SSA wanted the money back.

Why?

The SSA explained:

Your disability payments were stopped as of April 2023 because we learned that you had been working since April 2022.”

Well, so much for my guess that he got injured and stopped working.

Michael repaid what he could and set up a payment plan for the balance.

What makes this a tax case is that Michael left the SSI off his 2022 tax return.

Social security disability is taxed the same as regular social security. There is an unfortunate tax maze here, I admit. Up to a certain income, 50% of one’s social security is taxable. Keep increasing income and up to 85% is taxable. Land somewhere in-between and you almost need software to do the math. It is not a pretty area of the tax Code, frankly.

Michael explained that he omitted the social security because it was “an accidental overpayment” and was “repaid … in full.” He considered it more a loan than taxable income.

I get it, but Michael ran face first into a basic principle in taxation: you have to report what happened during the taxable period. In this case the period was 2022. By the end of 2022 he did not know that he would be required to return the money to the SSA. This was income free-and-clear when the New Year’s ball dropped.

OK, you ask: when would Michael make it right on his taxes?

In 2023, when he found out and returned the money.

How would Michael make it right?

He would do a special calculation on his 2023 return.

The concept here is called “claim of right,” and it goes back to a famous 1932 tax case. It was formalized into the tax Code in 1954 as Section 1341.

Have you ever read or heard a case about a corporate executive or professional athlete having to return money to his/her employer or team? The tax side (almost certainly) involves Section 1341.

How does it work?

First, there have to be (at least) two tax periods at play. If Michael had learned and repaid the SSA by the end of 2022 there would be no tax issue. It is flipping the calendar and starting another period that sets up the claim of right.

Second, there are two calculations, and you use the one yielding the smaller tax.

You run the tax for the year (of repayment) with the deduction, and

You (re)run the tax for the original year (that is, the claim of right year) with the deduction.

You use the smaller tax.

And yes, there can be trap here.

What if the repayment year has much less (or worse, no) income than the claim of right year?

You have a problem because the calculation takes the smaller of the two amounts. The flaw is baked into Section 1341.

The commentary I read speculated that the case may have involved a statute of limitations issue.

Nope, methinks.

Our secret mystery obscure Section 1341 kicks-in for the repayment year, which is 2023 in this case. The 2023 return was due on April 15, 2024. Let’s skip extensions and whatnot: the earliest that statute will expire is April 15, 2027.

No, I don’t think that was it.

Michael went for a long shot and hoped to exclude the income from his 2022 rather than 2023. Why?

Because Michael had no (or little) income in 2023 to absorb the Section 1341 lesser-of calculation.

I am again wondering if Michael was truly disabled in 2022 and subsequently got run over by both the SSA and IRS.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2026-25.

An Intelligence Site, A Tax Treaty, and a Closing Agreement

I am looking at a case involving IRS closing agreements and the U.S. Pine Gap facility in Australia.

It gives us a chance to talk about closing agreements, an uncommon topic.

It also gives a chance to talk about Pine Gap, which is a U.S. Intelligence-gathering facility in the Northern Territory of Australia. It started decades ago as a monitoring station for Soviet ballistic testing, and with the years it has acquired several new roles. Think of drone attacks in Pakistan, and you have an idea of what happens at Pine Gap.

FIRST ACT: we have a spooky intelligence site.

Let’s move on to a treaty.

Under general tax rules, Australia would be able to tax American workers at Pine Gap. They are - after all – working in Australia. This was not the desired result, so a treaty in the 1960s exempted American workers at Pine Gap from Australian tax. There was a requisite, though: to be exempt, the wages had to be taxed by the U.S.

Got it. There was a one-bite-at-the-apple rule. Australia would back off if the U.S. got the first bite.

But U.S. tax law also includes a foreign earned income exclusion, whereby an American worker overseas could exempt some (or all) of his/her wages from tax, if certain requirements were met.  

How could Australia be sure that the wages were being taxed by the U.S.? Mind you, the alternative was for Australia to apply the default rule, meaning that both Australia and the U.S. would tax the wages. Sure, the worker could claim a foreign tax credit on his/her U.S. tax return, but the tax consequences of working at Pine Gap would have escalated unappealingly.  

The treaty was revised in the 1980s to allow American workers at Pine Gap to relinquish their foreign earned income exclusion by entering into a closing agreement with the IRS.

SECOND ACT: we have an income tax treaty.

Cory was a U.S. Air Force veteran and engineer. In 2009 he received a job offer from Raytheon to work at Pine Gap. He was informed that Australia would not tax him, but to get there he would have to sign a closing agreement with the IRS. The agreement was straightforward: he would not claim the foreign earned income exclusion.

Mind you, he did not have to sign a closing agreement. Australia would then tax him, and his U.S. return would get a little more complicated.

Cory signed the agreement.

The point behind a closing agreement is finality. Both sides agree, settle, and move on. Excepting fraud or malfeasance, there are no “do-overs.” That is - as you would expect - the reason that one requests one. An example is the wrap-up of a taxable estate. The tax practitioner does not want that estate resurrecting later, causing headaches when all parties considered the matter closed.

Cory wanted out of his closing agreement.

Problem.

Closing agreements arise under a Code section. This means that the Court would be reviewing statutory law (that is, the Code as statute on the matter) and not just the general principles of contract law (offer, acceptance, and all that).

That Code section doesn’t let one off the hook without showing malfeasance or misrepresentation of a material fact.

Cory argued that he met that standard. Somebody somewhere at the IRS did not have appropriate signature authority; the IRS committed malfeasance by sharing information with his employer, Raytheon; he was induced to sign by false representations.

I think Cory was grasping at straws.

The Court apparently thought the same way. The Court decided Cory was stuck with the agreement. He signed it; he owned it.

THIRD ACT: we have a closing agreement.

This is a specialized case pulling-in several different areas of the Code.

I get Cory’s point. He wanted exemption both from Australian tax AND some/all U.S. tax.

Me too, Cory. Me too.

Our case this time was Cory H Smith v Commissioner, 159 T.C. No. 3 (Aug 25,2022).