The Gallenstein Rule

 

It is a tax rule that will eventually go extinct.

It came to my attention recently that it can – however – still apply.

Let’s set it up.

(1)  You have a married couple.

(2)  The couple purchased real estate (say a residence) prior to 1977.

(3)  One spouse passes away.

(4)  The surviving spouse is now selling the residence.

Yeah, that 1977 date is going to eliminate most people.

We are talking Section 2040(b).

(b)  Certain joint interests of husband and wife.

(1)  Interests of spouse excluded from gross estate.

Notwithstanding subsection (a), in the case of any qualified joint interest, the value included in the gross estate with respect to such interest by reason of this section is one-half of the value of such qualified joint interest.

(2)  Qualified joint interest defined.

For purposes of paragraph (1), the term "qualified joint interest" means any interest in property held by the decedent and the decedent's spouse as-

(A)  tenants by the entirety, or

(B)  joint tenants with right of survivorship, but only if the decedent and the spouse of the decedent are the only joint tenants.

In 1955 Mr. and Mrs. G purchased land in Kentucky. Mr. G provided all the funds for the purchase. They owned the property as joint tenants with right of survivorship.

In 1987 Mr. G died.  

In 1988 Mrs. G sold 73 acres for $3.6 million. She calculated her basis in the land to be $103,000, meaning that she paid tax on gain of $3.5 million.

Someone pointed out to her that the $103,000 basis seemed low. There should have been a step-up in the land basis when her husband died. Since he owned one-half, one-half of the land should have received a step-up.

COMMENT: You may have heard that one’s “basis” is reset at death. Basis normally means purchase cost, but not always. This is one of those “not always.” The reset (with some exceptions, primarily retirement accounts) is whatever the asset was worth at the date of death or – if one elects – six months later.  Mind you, one does not have to file an estate tax return to trigger the reset; rather, it happens automatically. That is a good thing, as the lifetime estate tax exemption is approaching $13 million these days. Very few of us are punching in that weight class.

Someone looked into Mrs. G’s situation and agreed. In May 1989 Mrs. G filed an amended tax return showing basis in the land as $1.8 million. Since the basis went up, the taxable gain went down. She was entitled to a refund.

Three months later she filed a second amended return showing basis in the land as $3.6 million. She wanted another refund.

This time she caught the attention of the IRS. They could understand the first amended but not the second. Where were these numbers parachuting from?

I am going to spare us both a technical walkthrough through the history of Code section 2040.

There was a time when joint owners had to track their separate contributions to the purchase of property, meaning that each owner would have his/her own basis. I suppose there are some tax metaphysics at play here, but the rule did not work well in real life. Sales transactions often occur decades after the purchase, and people do not magically know that they need to start precise accounting as soon as they buy property together. Realistically, these numbers sometimes cannot be recreated decades after the fact. In 1976 Congress changed the rule, saying: forget tracking for joint interests created after 1976. From now on the Code will assume that each tenant contributed one-half.

That is how we get to today’s rule that one-half of a couple’s property is included in the estate of the first-to-die. By being included in an estate, the property is entitled to a step-up in basis. The surviving spouse gets a step-up in the inherited half of the property. The surviving spouse also keeps his/her “old” basis in his/her original one-half. The surviving spouse’s total basis is therefore the sum of the “old” basis plus the step-up basis.

Mr. G died before 1977.

Meaning that Mrs. G was not subject to the new rule.

She was subject to the old rule. Since Mr. G had put up all the money, all the property (yes, 100%) was subject to a step-up in basis when Mr. G died.

That was the reason for the second amended return.

The Court agreed with Mrs. G.

It was a quirk in tax law.

The IRS initially disagreed with the decision, but it finally capitulated in 2001 after losing in court numerous times.

Mind you, the quirk still exists. However, the population it might affect is dwindling, as this law change was 47 years ago. We only live for so long.

However, if you come across someone who owned property with a spouse before 1977, you might have something.

BTW this tax treatment has come to be known by the widow who litigated against the IRS: the tax-nerds sometimes call it “the Gallenstein rule.”

When Do You Become A Landlord?

There is a requisite to being an NFL player – current or retired.

You must have played in the NFL.

There is a tax spiff on this point when you decide to landlord.

When does your rental start?

Probably when you place it in service, that is, when you have a tenant and begin receiving rent.

Can it start before then? Say that you are having trouble getting a tenant. Can you can say that you started renting before you have a tenant?

It probably can happen, but you had better line-up your facts in case of challenge.

I am looking at a case where the IRS assessed the following tax:

                 2004             $ 78,292

                     2005             $144,053     

                     2006             $218,228

                     2007             $143,729

                     2008             $252,777

                     2009             $309,060

Numbers like that will attract attention, the kind that can result in a challenge.

There is a doctor who now lives in Florida but used to live in Rhode Island. In 2004 he and his wife bought a mansion in Newport. The house was derelict, having been vacant for four decades.

It was uninhabitable, so the first thing they did was bring in a contractor.

It was a historic property, so there were also some tax credits in there.

Restoration started in 2002.

The work went into 2008.

That is a lot of restoration.

The family moved to Florida in 2005.

I suppose that answers the issue of whether this was ever a principal residence. It could not be if one could not live in it.

In 2006 they met a rental agent who specialized in luxury properties.

They got a temporary certificate of occupancy in 2007 and a final certificate in 2008.

Seems that one could argue that it was available for rent in 2007.

By 2007 the agent was hopeful she could attract a renter. She held up actively marketing it, however, as renovations were unfinished.

Sure enough, one of her clients expressed an interest in 2008.

The debt on this fiasco was ballooning, so the doctor and his wife decided to dump the house. The ante was upped when the bank increased their monthly payment in 2008 from $25 grand to $39 grand a month.

Count me out on ever renting this place.

In July, 2009 they sold the house.

They filed their 2009 tax return and reported a capital loss of a gazillion dollars.

Tax advisors are not overly fond of capital loses, as the only thing they can offset – with one exception – is capital gains. If you have no capital gains, then the loss just sits there – unused and gathering dust.

The doctor and his wife met a tax advisor who said that he could help: just treat the house as business property and the loss would be deductible. The good kind of loss – the kind you can actually lose.

They amended their 2009 return and reported a $8-plus million business loss.

Now they had a 2009 net operating loss. They carried the loss backward and forward. There were tax refunds and jollity aplenty.

However, numbers like that attract IRS attention, especially when you amend a return.

The IRS did not believe they had business property. If it was not business, then the initial reporting as capital loss was correct. The IRS wanted its money back.

Don’t think so, replied the doctor and his wife.

Off to Tax Court they went.

At issue was whether the house ever shifted to rental status, as that is the trigger for it to be business property.

There was one key – and punishing – fact: they never rented the house.

Here is the Court:

While we have no doubt that petitioners devoted a great deal of time, effort and expense to the renovation of Wrentham House Mansion, the record overwhelmingly confirms that Wrentham House Mansion was never held out for rent or rented after the restoration was complete. Quite simply, the rental activity with respect to Wrentham House Mansion never commenced in any meaningful or substantive way.”

Perhaps the doctor and his wife would have held on – at least long enough to rent for a while – if the monthly payment had not skyrocketed. They were pushed into a corner.

Still, no rent = no business = no business loss.

The best they could do was a capital loss.

What is the one exception to a capital loss I alluded to earlier?

You can deduct $3,000 a year against non-capital-gain property.

Which is no solace when you have an $8-plus million capital loss.

The case is Keefe v Commissioner for the homegamers.

Do You Actually Need To Rent Before Deducting Rental Expenses?

Let’s say that you own a piece of property. You are trying to claim a rental loss from that property on your tax return. What would you say is the most important requisite in order to claim that loss?

Let’s take a look at the Meinhardt case.

Mr. Meinhardt worked full-time as an architect. His wife operated a day care center out of their home.

In 1976 they purchased 140 acres of farmland in rural Minnesota, consisting of tillable and pasture land and an eighty-year old farmhouse in need of substantial renovation. In subsequent years they sometimes farmed the land, but mostly they rented the land to neighbors for cash rent. They were successful in renting the farmland. They were not so successful in renting the farmhouse.

Thirty years go by.

On their tax returns for 2005, 2006 and 2007 they reported rent from the farmland, as well as substantial expenses for repairs to the old farmhouse. The IRS looked at the return and disallowed the repairs.

They wound up in Tax Court.

The Meinhardts had a simple argument: hey, we own a farm. We rent the farm. For the years under audit our expenses exceeded our income, and we therefore incurred farm losses.

The IRS had a different take. They saw the land being rented on a regular and repetitive basis. There wasn’t much for the IRS to challenge there.

The farmhouse was a different matter. The farmhouse never reported rental income.

That is one lousy rental.

Let’s take a breath. This is not necessarily fatal. The Meinhardts rented a farm. It doesn’t means that all parts and parcels of said farm were equally profitable. As long as it was profitable overall, right?

That, by the way, is the tax concept of aggregation when discussing passive activities, such as rentals.

The Meinhardts explained that they tried to rent the farmhouse, but nobody wanted it. They placed ads in newspapers, put up notices in local stores and spread the word that the house was for rent. The best they could get were renters who would barter for their rent, trading repairs in order to live rent-free. You cannot rent something that no one wants to rent. That doesn’t mean it wasn’t legitimately for rent, though.

The Meinhardts had a reasonable argument.

The IRS, on the other hand, felt that the farmhouse should be separated from the farmland. Hey, they tried to rent the house separate from the land. They rented the land but never rented the house. Does that sound like one rental or two rentals to you?

And there you have the tax concept of disaggregation.

Rent is rent, whether it be land or building. How was the IRS going to pull this off?

The Meinhardts helped them by never reporting rental income from the farmhouse. There was barter, but the documentation was sketchy.

Since the house had not been rented, the IRS wanted to know who had used the house over the years. The Meinhardts used it themselves, but only sporadically and usually coinciding with maintaining the property.

Other tenants included:

·        Wife’s brother (lived their seasonally)

·        Their daughter and son-in-law

·        Their son and his family

It turns out that the Meinhardts – or their family – had used the farmhouse for almost all the years.

Are you kidding me?

Did I mention that the 2005 through 2007 years were not representative, as the Meinhardts were racking up a lot of repairs to that old house? It sure would be nice to slide those expenses over to Uncle Sam.

The Tax Court decided that the farmhouse was either the Meinhardts second residence or it was a property not held for rental – you take your pick. The tax consequence is the same.

The Meinhardts, unhappy with this result, appealed to the Eight Circuit. They lost there too.

What are we to learn from this? That the Meinhardts should never have tried to rent the farmhouse separate from the farmland? That they should have automatically thrown in the farmhouse for a dollar when renting the land? That they never should have allowed the family to stay there? That at least they should have charged the family rent? (I personally think that last one is obvious).

I think we are thinking about this too hard.

Methinks that what the court could not stomach was the Meinhardts selling their house in the suburbs and moving into the farmhouse in 2010.

After fixing it up in 2005, 2006 and 2007.

And deducting it on their tax return.

Courts will “back into” a tax analysis to get the desired result. Happens all the time.

The Meinhardts failed to observe a fundamental tenet of tax strategy: never arm the other side.