“ROB”-ing a 401(k) Plan

A CPA acquaintance from New Jersey came into town and spent a couple of days at the office. Why? Well, maybe he wanted to get away from New Jersey. Actually, he wanted to take a look at some of the policies and procedures we utilize. He only recently purchased his own practice.

He said something that surprised me, and which I thought we could discuss this week. He funded his accounting practice by using his 401(k) funds. This technique is sometimes referred to as “rollover for business startup.” The acronym is “ROBS.” Catchy, eh?

What do I think about ROBS? Frankly, I am a bit uncomfortable with them. There is the issue of concentrating your retirement monies in a venture also intended to provide current income. Should it fail both income and retirement monies vanish. I am financially conservative, as you can guess.

The second issue is technical: there are a number of ways this structure can run afoul of some very technical requirements. You have tax law, you have ERISA, you have … well, you have enough to cause concern.

Let’s give this CPA acquaintance a name. We will call him “Garry,” mostly because his name actually is Garry. Here is what Garry did:

(1)    Garry created a corporation. The corporation had no assets, no employees, no business operations, no shareholders. Accountants call this a “shell” corporation.

(2)    The corporation adopted a retirement plan. The plan allowed for participants to invest the entirety of their account in employer stock.

(3)    Garry became an employee of the corporation.

(4)    Garry rolled-over his 401(k) (or a portion thereof) to the newly-created retirement plan.

(5)    Garry had the plan purchase the employer stock.

(6)    The corporation now had cash, which …

(7)    The corporation used to purchase an accounting practice.

What can possibly go wrong? Here are several areas:

(1)    You need a solid valuation for the 401(k) purchase of the employer stock. I would not want to go into the IRS with only a rough calculation on the back of an envelope. The trustee of the plan has fiduciary responsibility. Granted Garry is both the fiduciary and beneficiary, but he still has responsibilities as trustee.

(2)    The workforce has to be able to participate in the plan.

a.       This is a qualified plan. There are nondiscrimination requirements, same as any other qualified plan.

b.      This is not a problem for a one-man shop. What will Garry do when he hires, however?

                                                               i.      Here is what he better do: amend the plan to prohibit further investment in employer stock. Future employees will not be allowed to invest in Garry’s accounting firm stock.

(3)    There is a fiduciary standard for investment diversification.

a.       You can see the problem.

                                                               i.      Maybe Garry can open a second accounting office. You know, diversify.

(4)    Garry is paying for all this. Some brokers will charge over $5,000 to set up a ROBS.

a.       Oh, there are also ongoing annual charges. The plan will have an annual Form 5500 filing requirement, for example.

b.      There may also be periodic valuations, requiring Garry to pay a valuation expert.

                                                               i.      Why? Because Garry has a difficult-to-value asset in a qualified plan. Difficult-to-value does not mean Garry gets a free pass on valuing the asset. It does mean that it is going to cost him.

(5)    These transactions have caught the attention of the IRS. This does not mean that his transaction will be audited, challenged or voided, but it does mean that he has walked into a spotlight.

a.       Garry had to gauge his IRS risk-tolerance as well as his financial diversification risk-tolerance.

Are ROBS considered “out there” tax-wise? Actually, no. There are tens of thousands of these structures and their businesses up and running. Garry is in good company. And while the IRS has scowled, that doesn’t mean that ROBS are not viable under the tax code and ERISA. It does mean that Garry should be careful, though. Professional advice is imperative.

Get Ready for Stock Cost-Basis Reporting

There will be changes in how your stockbroker reports your stock trades for 2011.

Your broker now has to report the “cost” of your stock trades. This is a new rule for 2011. It came in as part of the 2008 Emergency Stabilization Act, also known as the bank bailout bill. You can anticipate that the purpose of this rule is to raise taxes.

There are three steps to the phase-in of this bill:

(1)    For 2011 (that is, the 2012 tax season), brokers are to report cost on all equity trades, if the equity was bought on or after January 1, 2011.

(2)    For 2012 (the 2013 tax season) brokers will report cost for mutual funds, dividend reinvestment plans and many exchange –traded funds bought on or after January 1, 2012.

(3)    For 2013 (the 2014 tax season), the rule will be extended to bonds and options.

There is a tax trap in here, so let’s go over it. The trap releases if you bought the security at different times and prices. Brokers refer to this as “accumulation.” Each time you buy the stock is called a “lot.”Let’s use the following accumulation as an example:

Let’s say you bought Sirius XM Radio at the following prices:

                January, 2010                     500 shares           $0.70

                May, 2011                           400 shares           $2.31

                August, 2011                      300 shares           $1.71                   

You sell 300 shares today at $1.77 per share. What is your cost for the 300 shares?

The IRS has provided four options:

(1)    First-in, first, out (FIFO).

a.       Under this rule, your cost would be 300 times $0.70 = $210.

(2)    Last-in, first out (LIFO)

a.       Under this rule, your cost would be 300 times $1.71 = $513.

(3)    Highest cost

a.       Under this rule, your cost would be 300 times $2.31 = $693

(4)    Specific identification

a.       You get to pick which shares you sold. All things being the same, you would probably select the May, 2011 lot and use $693 as cost.

Under our example, your answer could vary from a gain of $321 to a loss of $162.  It is quite a swing.

Where is the trap?

You have to tell the broker which method you are using, and you have to tell them before the settlement date of the trade. This is very different from the way it has been, which previously allowed the accountant to decide which method to use when preparing your return. We many times contacted a broker for lot dates, shares and cost when a client had accumulated a position in a stock. We had the luxury (if it could be called that) of doing so when preparing the return. This now has to be done within three business days of the trade date.

There is also another trap. If you do not select a method, the IRS will select it for you. The IRS will decree that you selected the first-in, first-out method. That is a fine method, but if you look back at our example, you will see that it is also the method that reports the least cost, and therefore the most gain, to the IRS. Remember what I said about raising revenue for the government?

 And the final trap? By the time you get to me, there is nothing I – as your tax CPA – can do.

Your Accountant Makes the Mistake. Do You Owe Penalties?

If your accountant omits some of your income on your personal income tax return, is it fair that you should be penalized by the IRS?

Generally speaking, reliance on a tax preparer is “reasonable cause” to request penalty mitigation from the IRS. Generally, but not always.

Enter Stephen Woodsum (SW). SW has a bachelors degree from Yale and a masters from Northwestern. He was a founding director of Summit Partners, a private equity firm.

Note: Mr. Woodsum is financially savvy.

In 1998 SW entered a transaction described as a “ten year total return limited partnership linked swap.” This transaction involved Bankers Trust Company and Deutsche Bank and included a reference to paying interest at the “LIBOR rate” upon the “notional amount” of the “reference fund.”

        Note: Financially unsavvy people do not use these words.

So, the swap was to expire in 2008 – ten years. SW was unhappy with the performance of the swap and ended it in 2006. He received at that time a Form 1099 reporting the $3.4 million Deutsche Bank paid him and another 1099 for $60,291 of interest income.

SW gave all of his tax documents to his accountant. There were over 160 such documents. SW must have had a good year, as the $3.4 million was not the largest number on his tax return. It would however had been the third largest capital gain had the $3.4 million in proceeds been reported.

The accountant prepared the return, including the interest but excluding the $3.4 million.  Some accountant. SW and his wife met with the accountant on October 15, the day the return was due. They had to go over the federal return and 27 state income tax returns. The federal return alone was 115 pages.

Mr. and Mrs. Woodsum did not notice that the accountant had left out the $3.4 million.

The IRS did notice, of course, and wanted the tax and interest, as well as penalties.

Mr. Woodsum felt he did not have to pay penalties because… well, he relied on his accountant. I agree with SW.

The court made an interesting comment. It observed that courts have previously mitigated the penalties, but it continued …

It may be (and petitioners seem to expect the Court to assume) that the omission was the result of the C.P.A.'s oversight of one Form 1099 amid 160 such forms, but no actual evidence supports that characterization. The omission is unexplained, and since petitioners have the burden to prove reasonable cause and good faith, this evidentiary gap works against their defense.”

No actual evidence supports that characterization? I would have gotten a statement from the accountant clarifying that the accountant was provided but failed to include the 1099 on my return.

The court seemed unwilling to give SW as much latitude because of his financial sophistication. The court goes on…

Mr. Woodsum, however, makes no showing of a review reasonable under the circumstances. He personally ordered the termination that gave rise to the income; he received a Form 1099-MISC reporting that income; that amount should have shown up on Schedule D as a distinct item; but it was omitted. The parties stipulated that petitioners' “review” of the defective return was of an unknown duration and that it consisted of the preparer turning the pages of the return and discussing various items. Petitioners understated their income by $3.4 million—an amount that was substantial not only in absolute terms but also in relative terms (i.e., it equaled about 10 percent of petitioners' adjusted gross income). A review undertaken to “make sure all income items are included” (in the words of Magill)—or even a review undertaken only to make sure that the major income items had been included—should, absent a reasonable explanation to the contrary, have revealed an omission so straightforward and substantial.”

I have had clients who did the same as Mr. Woodsum. It did not occur to me that they were conducting an unreasonable review. They provided all documents, answered all questions, met with me and complained about the amount I told them they owed. These are wealthy people. This is not you or I, where the absence of our salary would be immediately noticeable on our return. Mr. Woodsum reported approximately $33 million of income on his return. Note that the sale was not even the largest number on a schedule to Mr. Woodsum’s return.

The court upheld the penalties.

Perhaps this is what happens when a private equity manager gets into a complex financial transaction with names like “ten year total return limited partnership linked swap.” This court was not willing to bend much on the reporting of a “Wall Street” transaction that requires a tax seminar to understand.
The penalties were over $100 thousand.

I wonder whether Mr. Woodsum is suing his accountant for malpractice.