Renting To Yourself And The "Cox" Strategy

My partner brought me a new client’s personal income tax return. He wanted me to “come up with tax ideas,” as though I am an Iron Chef deciding what to do with the show’s “secret” ingredient.

Something caught my eye. Let’s talk about it.

Let me set this up for you:

(1) Taxpayer is married.

(2) The wife is self-employed. More specifically, she is a proprietor and reports her business income on a Schedule C.

(3) The business owns a house used as offices. The business depreciates the house.

(4) As is true for Schedules C, all her profits are subject to self-employment taxes.

There you go. You have all the facts you need.

Got it yet?

It has to do with the house.

There is a tax case from the 1990s addressing self-rental between a business and its owner. Taxpayer (Cox) was an attorney who reported his practice as a sole proprietorship.  His offices were in a commercial building owned jointly by Cox and his wife. He paid himself rent of $18,000, which he deducted from the law practice and reported as rental income elsewhere on his return.

NOTE: Cox addressed the “passive activities” rules. He apparently had passive losses that he could release by generating passive income.  If so, his net rental income might zero-out, and he would still get an income tax deduction for paying himself rent. It would be a win-win – if only the self-rental rule did not prohibit it.

The IRS of course disallowed the $18,000 rent entirely.

Cox went to trial on a very interesting position. He and his wife owned the rental property as tenants by the entireties. He argued that the form of ownership made a tax difference.

The Tax Court was intrigued. It looked to Missouri property law, and it noticed two things. First, each spouse is entitled to the use and enjoyment of the entire property. Second, a spouse cannot unilaterally divest his spouse of his/her interest in the property.

In a tax venue, this meant that Mrs. Cox was entitled to half the rent, and that Mr. Cox could not divest her of that right.

And the Court allowed Mr. Cox a $9,000 deduction for rent on his Schedule C. It disallowed the other $9,000 (that is, his half) under the self-rental rule.

How does this apply to the new client?

Taxpayer and her husband own the house. She owns the business. I see a strategy… for her self-employment tax.

Did I trip you up?

Remember: all her Schedule C income is subject to self-employment tax, which currently is 15.3 percent. One way to reduce it is to take a tax deduction on her Schedule C and report the corresponding “income” somewhere else on her tax return - somewhere that is NOT subject to self-employment tax. Somewhere like a real estate rental.

The tax pros refer to this a “Cox” strategy. The strategy we are talking about may also cause additional taxes under the new Obamacare “net investment income” tax. A tax advisor would have to review the situation and run numbers.

Still, it is something, and it is all your money until they take it from you. If this applies to your business situation, please bring it to your tax advisor’s attention. 

Change In Innocent Spouse Tax Relief

You may have read or seen that the IRS has ‘changed” the rules for innocent spouse relief. 

While this is not wrong, it is incomplete. How? Because there are three ways to request innocent spouse status, and the IRS has changed one of them. The other two remain as they were before.

Being married and filing a joint tax return with your spouse is what creates this issue. You later divorce or separate from your spouse. You and your (now ex) spouse are audited by the IRS. Remember, the IRS lags a year or two before they select returns for audit. The IRS finds unreported income and assesses additional tax.  The income triggering the tax belongs to your ex-spouse.

Let’s return to the joint tax return you filed. A joint return means that you are “jointly and severally liable.”  The IRS can proceed against you alone, against your spouse alone or against the two of you.  The IRS can, and likely will, proceed against you (for at least 50%) even if it wasn’t your fault. From their perspective, why not? They have nothing to lose, and it doubles their chance of getting someone to pay.

This is the point of innocent spouse relief. You want to separate your tax from that of your ex-spouse. Ideally, you want to completely separate your tax, so that the IRS leaves you alone for any additional tax, penalties and interest.

There are three types of innocent spouse relief.

Type I is “general” relief:

(1)   You filed a joint return.

(2)   The return has an “understatement of tax” due to “erroneous” items of your spouse (or ex-spouse).

(3)   You can show that at the time you signed the joint return you did not know, and had no reason to know, that there was an understatement of tax.

(4)   Considering all the “facts and circumstances,” it would be unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax.

An “erroneous” item is IRS-speak for not reporting income or for overstating deductions.

The third requirement can be a tough to meet.  It is possible that you did not know, but that is not enough. The IRS wants to be sure that you had no reason to know. For example, you and your spouse reported $60,000 of income. That year you and your spouse bought a Colorado chalet and a Bugatti Veyron. Unless you had savings to tap into or one of you inherited, expect the IRS to be very skeptical of you denying any “knowledge.” They will figure that you should have known.  And it doesn’t have to be as dramatic as a Swiss chalet. Perhaps you and your ex moved to a nicer neighborhood. Or enrolled the kids in a private school. Or started showing horses.  A quick review of your income and savings would prompt one to wonder how you paid for everything. Expect the IRS to argue that you had “constructive” knowledge. That is, you “had reason to know.”

Type II is “separation of liability.”

Under this method, you separate your income and deductions from your (ex) spouse’s income and deductions. You then calculate your separate tax on such separate income. You are trying to get the IRS to agree that your share of the joint tax is that amount and not more.

It does have the advantage of appearing “fair.”

Oh, the IRS requires that you be divorced, legally separated or at least living apart for the 12-month period preceding the innocent spouse filing. Don’t be surprised if your tax planning includes advice to get divorced.

What is going to sour the IRS on this deal, other than their general reluctance to let anyone off the hook?  Well, that “knowledge” requirement we discussed previously will derail you, with one important distinction: you must have actually known of the tax understatement. The “you should have known” argument is not good enough to deny you the second type of innocent spouse relief.

A second thing that will sink the separation of liabilities is transferring assets for the main purpose of avoiding payment of tax. You can expect the IRS to want to review every significant asset move between you and your ex.

You must request Type I and Type II innocent spouse relief within 2 years after the date on which the IRS first begins collection activity against you. This is not the same as the date you filed the return. Rather it is the date that the IRS sends you a letter or asks you to go downtown for a meeting.

Type III is “equitable relief.”

Equitable relief is only available if you meet the following conditions:

• You do not qualify for innocent spouse relief or separation of liability.
• The IRS determines that it is unfair to hold you liable for the understatement of tax taking into account all the facts and circumstances.

Well, unfair is in the eye of the beholder, isn’t it? What facts and circumstances will the IRS consider as they ponder whether to be fair or unfair?

·        

• Current marital status
• Abuse
• Reasonable belief of the spouse requesting innocent spouse, at the time he or she signed the return, that the tax was going to be paid; or in the case of an understatement, whether that  spouse had knowledge or reason to know of the understatement
• Current financial hardship or inability to pay basic living expenses
• Legal obligation to pay the tax liability pursuant to a divorce decree or other agreement to pay the liability
• To whom the liability is attributable
• Significant benefit received by the spouse asking for innocent spouse
• Mental or physical health of the spouse requesting innocent spouse on the date that spouse signed the return or requested relief
• Compliance with income tax laws following the taxable year or years to which the request for relief relates

The IRS had previously held Type III relief to the same time limit as Types I and II. While not in the Code itself, the IRS inserted the time limit into its Regulations and battled hard to have the courts accept its position.

The IRS lost a high profile case (Lantz) on this issue in 2010. Lantz was the former wife of an Indiana dentist. In 2000 her then-husband was arrested for Medicaid fraud. Shortly thereafter came a $900,000 IRS bill. She didn’t file for innocent spouse because he told her that he had taken care of it. He did not, of course. Shortly thereafter he died.

And of course more than two years had gone by…

Mrs. Lantz filed for Type III innocent spouse. In 2009 the Tax Court sided with her. In 2010, however, the Appeals Court sided with the IRS.

The IRS Taxpayer Advocate howled at what was happening to Mrs. Lantz. Forty-nine members of the House of Representatives sent a letter to the IRS Commissioner demanding a stop to such behavior.  

The IRS did, and in 2011 it announced that it was backing-off the two-year requirement for Type III innocent spouse claims. 

The IRS has now published Regulations formalizing what it announced back in 2011.   

So how long do you have now to file a Type III innocent spouse claim? You have ten years – the same period as the IRS has to collect taxes from you.

Note though that Type I and Type II still have the two-year requirement. It is only Type III that has changed. Why the difference? Because for Types I and II, the two-year requirement is written into the law.

My Thoughts: To hold an innocent spouse to a two-year window – when the law passed by Congress said nothing about a two-year window for Type III relief – was a clubfooted mistake by the IRS. It is a bit late, but the IRS finally got it right.

By the way, if you have been turned down for innocent spouse – and you are still within the ten-year window – please consider filing again under the new rules.

Senator Baucus Wants To End Stretch IRAs

Congress is looking to take away a planning option for IRAs as it seeks more money to fund its spending.

The proposal was snuck into the Highway Investment, Job Creation and Economic Growth Act of 2012. The bill was heard by the Senate Finance Committee, and Chairman Max Baucus (D., Mont.) recommended a provision curtailing the use of “stretch” IRAs.

What is a “stretch” IRA? Say you leave your IRA, or part of your IRA, to your son and daughter. Upon your passing, they take over (separate) IRA accounts. They cannot wait until 70 ½ to begin distributions, as these are inherited IRAs. They have to begin distributions by December 31 of the year following your death, but they are allowed to reset the distribution period to their own life expectancy. This allows the opportunity to have the IRA compound – or “stretch” – over their much longer life expectancy.

Truthfully, the numbers can be astounding. Consider a 78 year-old grandfather passing a $100,000 IRA to his granddaughter, who, upon her passing, transfers the remaining stretch IRA to her son or daughter. This wealth compounding is a reason financial planners like to work with stretch IRAs.

It is of course unpalatable to allow one to decide how to distribute the monies in his/her IRA, so Sen. Baucus has stepped-in to decide this matter for you. Under his proposal, most nonspouse inheritors would have to withdraw the entire amount from the traditional IRA over a period of five years. There would be exceptions for beneficiaries who are disabled, chronically ill, a minor, or a beneficiary no more than 10 years younger than the IRA owner.

Roth IRAs would remain unchanged. Nonspouse beneficiaries must begin distributions from the Roth by December 31 of the year after inheriting, but they can draw these out over their own expected life expectancies.

Why are people concerned? Here is a statistic: approximately 40% of the stock market is tied-up in 401(k)s, 403(b)s, IRAs and similar vehicles. It is an attractive target.

IRS Extends Key Deadline for 2010 Estates

On September 13, 2011 the IRS announced that estates of 2010 decedents will have until next year to file certain tax forms and pay the related taxes. In addition, the IRS is also providing relief for beneficiaries of those estates.

The timing was critical, as 2010 estate tax returns for decedents dying on or before 12/16/2010 were due Monday, September 19, 2011. Estate tax returns are normally due nine months after death, but there was an exception because of last year’s tax law flux.

Remember there was no estate tax for most of 2010. On December 17, 2010, the President signed a tax bill that reinstated the estate tax retroactively to January 1, 2010. That law set a 35% estate tax rate and provided an estate tax exemption of $5 million. The advantage to this scheme is that estate assets get “stepped-up” to their fair market value at the date of death. This means that the inheritors can (generally) sell the assets right away without incurring any income tax. To complicate matters, the bill also made this scheme an option for 2010. Estates of 2010 decedents could opt out of the new tax and use a modified basis carryover regime. There would be no estate tax, but the heirs received the same basis in assets as the decedent (with a $3 million exception for the surviving spouse and a $1.3 million exception for non-spousal beneficiaries). This opt-out required the beneficiaries to know the carryover basis in the assets inherited, so the IRS created a new form (Form 8939 - Allocation of Increase in Basis for Property Acquired From a Decedent). Opting-out of the estate tax is an irrevocable election.

As I write this, the IRS has not finalized Form 8939, although a draft version is available.

The IRS is providing the following filing relief:

·    If the estate is opting out of the new estate tax regime (that is, an estate of $5 million or more) it will have until January 17, 2012, to file Form 8939. This form was previously due November 15, 2011. The new due date will apply automatically; the estate does not need to file any anything.

·    Estates between 1/1/2010 and 12/16/2010 that request an extension to file their estate tax returns and pay any estate tax due will have until March 19, 2012, to file. The IRS will not assess penalties for either late filing or late payment.  Interest will be due on any estate tax paid after the original due date.

·    Estates between 12/17/10 and 12/31/10 will be due 15 months after the date of death. The IRS will not assess penalties for either late filing or late payment.  Interest will be due on any estate tax paid after the original due date.

·    The IRS is providing penalty relief to beneficiaries who received property from a 2010 decedent and also sold the property in 2010. The taxpayer should write “IRS Notice 2011-76” on the amended return to identify the issue to the IRS.

Confused? It is easy to be.  Some thoughts:

(1)   Seems to me that an estate under $5 million would generally elect-out, especially if the appreciation in estate assets is less than $1.3 million. In that event, we don’t even need the spousal $3 million to protect all the step-up.

a.   Remember that there are assets that do not receive a step-up. These are sometimes referred to as IRD (income in respect of a decedent) assets. The most common – by far – are 401(k) s and IRAs.

(2)   Estates over $5 million are a tougher call.

a.   Even then, it depends on the mix of assets. If the majority of assets are IRD assets, the step-up may be modest, as IRD assets do not step-up. That would incline one to the carryover regime.

b.   We are now balancing the estate tax with looming income taxes when the beneficiaries sell the assets.  If there is modest appreciation, then the carryover regime would appeal. If there is substantial appreciation, then the new tax regime would appeal – maybe.

                                          i.    Why maybe? Because it depends on the tax rate. If the assets would generate capital gains, an Ohio beneficiary would face an approximate 21% income tax rate (15% federal plus 6% Ohio). Why would one pay 35% when one could pay 21%?

c.   Frankly, I am not sure how one could determine the best course of action without assembling the fair market values and basis for all estate assets and considering the intentions of the beneficiaries. If the beneficiary intends to sell the asset right away, then one could incline to a different decision than if the beneficiary intends to retain the asset forever.

d.   There is an issue in the carryover regime that concerns tax practitioners. How do you determine the basis of an asset that has been owned forever and for which cost records do not exist? This is not a small matter, as the default IRS response is to say that the asset has a basis of zero. If this fact pattern is a significant for the estate, then one would be inclined to the new tax regime as the assets would step-up to fair market value on the date of death.

IRS Removes Two-Year Limit On Innocent Spouse Claims

The IRS has reversed its position on granting innocent spouse relief.

The concept of innocent spouse requires that the spouses file a joint return. The problem with a joint return is the joint liability, which means that one or both parties can be held responsible, in part or in full, for any liability.  What happens when the spouses file a joint return showing a liability and one spouse believes that the tax has been “resolved” – and believes this both in error and to his/her disadvantage? What if the spouses are later separated or divorced? What if one spouse is in jail? What if one spouse died?

The effect of joint liability can be harsh, so the IRS Code allows an escape hatch for innocent spouses.

There are three types of innocent spouse provisions in the Code. Two types require the spouse to file the claim within two years of IRS notification. The third type does not contain this provision, but the IRS has construed the provision as containing the wisp of a dim shadow of Congressional intent to include a two-year provision. With that divination, the IRS has been disallowing innocent spouse claims filed later than two years for all three types of innocent spouse claims.

Doesn’t sound like much, but think about an example.  A husband abuses his wife. He certainly is not keeping her informed about tax notices. She knows zip about the taxes other than signing the return at his behest. She finally leaves the fool. She does so however after two years of first IRS contact, not that she would know about it. Previously the IRS would have said that she was out of luck.

Well, a number of people thought this was unconscionable, including the IRS National Taxpayer Advocate, many practitioners and members of Congress. The IRS has finally relented and removed the two-year requirement from “type three” of innocent spouse. For those who follow the tax literature, the change was published in Notice 2001-70.

I have done innocent spouse claims. I am happy with this change.

Congress Speaks Up on Innocent Spouse Tax Relief

I am glad to see that Congress is addressing the IRS’s position concerning innocent spouse and litigated in Cathy Marie Lantz v. Commissioner.

Here is a summary of the issue:

There are three “types” of innocent spouse claims. Let’s refer to them by the Code subsections they are presented under: (b), (c) and (f). Type (b) is the classic innocent spouse: the erroneous items belong to one spouse; the other spouse did not know or have reason to know. Type (c) is for divorced spouses and allows each spouse to determine his/her liability as if the spouse had filed a separate return.

Type (f) is more of an expansive innocent spouse rule. It was passed years after the original provisions (it was passed in 1998), and it seeks to provide an opportunity for spouses who cannot meet the (sometimes technical) requirements of (b) and (c).

What (b) and (c) have in common is that the spouse has to file the innocent spouse claim within two years of contact by the IRS. What happens, though, if the one spouse is not told by the other spouse of the contact? Could happen. Some would say it will happen. Say further that two years go by. The spouse then learns of the problem and tries to pursue innocent spouse relief under (f). Does the two year rule apply to an (f) filing?

Interestingly, Congress did not include a two year rule in (f), a point which many practitioners, including myself, interpret to mean that Congress did not mean to include a two year rule in (f). Seems straightforward. The law was in place; Congress was aware of the law and chose not to include the two year requirement.

The IRS does not agree. The IRS argues that Congress delegated authority to it to write administrative Regulations for (f), and that, after consulting with Carnac the Magnificent, it believes that Congress intended for there to be a two-year requirement under (f). Congress just forgot to write it in to the law.

There was a case last year,Cathy Marie Lantz v. Commissioner, which unfortunately agreed with the IRS. To be fair, there is a technical argument, and the argument can be persuasive. Unfortunately, it does not pass the “common sense” test.

Congress has now chimed in and 49 Representatives — including all the Democrats who sit on the tax-writing House Ways and Means Committee — have told the IRS Commissioner that the IRS had “violated the spirit of the original law” in limiting relief to two years. Three Democratic senators — Max Baucus of Montana, the chairman of the Finance Committee; Tom Harkin of Iowa; and Sherrod Brown of Ohio — have sounded the same theme.

The national IRS taxpayer advocate - Nina Olson – has also asked for the two year limit to be extended or revoked.

Let’s hope something comes of this.