Deducting Something You Did Not Pay For

What caught my eye was the amount of penalties at issue:

     Year                       Amount

     2002                       $  100,000

     2003                       $  105,000

     2004                       $1,822,000

     2005                       $1,785,000

     2006                       $1,355,000

The penalties total over $5.1 million. I had to look this case over, even though it weighs in at 123 pages.

It involves Martin Knapp, a CPA. He got his license in 1983.

He had worked at the IRS. He also taught accounting and taxation at Pepperdine and Los Angeles City College.

Not a bad resume, methinks.

He did something I never did: he specialized his practice. He focused on transportation workers, including airline pilots and railroad workers. He especially focused on mariners.

As of 2004 he employed 10 people.

Sounds successful to me.

He began his mariner practice around 1993. Two of his clients wound up in Tax Court, and it is there that our story begins.

The first client was Mr. Johnson, a deep-sea mariner. He would routinely work for four months and then take a two-month vacation.

The second was Mr. Westling, a tugboat captain in and around Alaska. He would work 30-day shifts on the tugboat.

Knapp amended Johnson’s return and prepared Mr. Westling’s return for 1996. He claimed a per diem for every day they were on the boat.

So what, right?

Here is the what: The per diem included a meal allowance, and their employers provided the meals.

I do not get it. How can someone get a deduction if that someone did not incur an expense in the first place?

The IRS flagged the returns, and both went to Tax Court.

Since they presented the same issue, the cases were consolidated.

In September, 2000 the Tax Court decided that neither could deduct meal expenses but they could deduct incidental expenses.

COMMENT: The incidental portion of a per diem is for tips and miscellaneous stuff, such as mouthwash. It is only a few bucks per day and nowhere near the amount allowed for meals. In short, there was a (very) minor victory and a very large defeat.

Mr Kapp did not represent in the Tax Court case, but he did read the decisions. He contacted the attorney who represented the IRS to request a face-to-face meeting. The attorney could not do this, as Kapp was an “interested” party. I could (hypothetically) have met with the attorney (as I had nothing to do with either Johnson or Westling), but Kapp was the CPA and therefore very much an interested party.

Kapp doubled down. He kept advising his clients that they could deduct meals even if meals were provided by their employer.

He tripled down. He created websites promoting his services to mariners and asserting that he could obtain tax refunds for them.

He quadrupled down. He wrote articles for Professional Mariner and The National Public Accountant. Here is an example:

The exciting news for mariners is that two U.S. Tax Court decisions last year settled the legal issue of allowing mariners to claim an almost unlimited amount of travel deductions while working away from home, without ever having to show the IRS any receipts, just like other transportation workers.”

Enter Examining Officer Tiffany Smith, who informed Kapp that he was the target of an IRS investigation for tax shelter promotion.

He sent her a 9-page letter detailing the relevant authority for the mariner deduction and arguing that the IRS does not oppose his position.

Does not oppose…?

Kapp wrote a letter he titled “Why is IRS Harassing Me for Twice Winning in U.S. Tax Court?”

This is going south ….

The investigation was transferred to George Campos, a revenue agent investigating tax promoters and abusive tax return preparers.

There is back and forth with Kapp and his attorney. In August, 2005 Campos and Kapp meet. Campos points out that there is no deduction for something one has not paid. Kapp asserts that “it does not matter if *** receive a meal or not, they’re still entitled to a deduction.”

Campos prepared an injunction.

Kapp’s attorney started to worry. He had an associate research the issue of mariners and meal deductions and memo the same. The result was pretty much the same as the IRS position, which was a bad place to be when you represent Kapp.

In early 2006 the Department of Justice sent Kapp a letter informing him that it was considering filing a lawsuit and providing him an opportunity to call and discuss the matter.

For all that is holy, Kapp, please STOP ….

At this point we are on page 55 of a 123-page court decision, and I am going to end it.

The IRS wanted him to stop. If he stops, he may yet walk away with all limbs still attached. Continue this quixotic quest, however, and he might lose it all.

The Court decided he was wrong and hardheaded. Not being without compassion, however, the Court reduced the penalties to $3,218,000.

There goes a lifetime of savings.

Oh, why, Kapp, why?

Travel Expenses When You Have One Client

It is an issue I know well: when are your away-from-home travel expenses deductible?

Granted, this issue has a lot less lift underneath it now that miscellaneous itemized deductions are disallowed, but it can still affect the self-employeds, including partners and LLC members.

What sets it up is the concept of a “tax home.”

This term does not mean what you would first think.

A tax home is primarily an economic concept: where do you earn your paycheck? Depending on that answer, you may or may not have deductible travel expenses.

Say that you live in northern Kentucky. Your job is in San Francisco. Every Sunday you catch a plane out, and every Friday you return home.

COMMENT: I am not making this up. I had a client who did this – for a while. It was a VERY good paycheck.

You do not have deductible travel. You earn your paycheck in San Francisco. You are not travelling away from your tax home. You are travelling away from your residence, but in this case your residence is not your tax home.

Let’s mix it up. Say that you work one week in San Francisco and one week from Kentucky. Have you moved the needle?

You may have.

Let’s mix it up again.

Say you have five clients. One week you travel to San Francisco. Another week you travel to Nashville. One week you stay home and work on your three other clients.

Have you moved the needle?

Yep.

When a taxpayer does not have a permanent place of business but rather is employed by various clients and at different locations, the default rule is that the taxpayer’s residence is deemed the tax home. This is the Zbylut case, and feel free to call me on how to correctly pronounce the name.

I am looking at the Brown case (TC Memo 2019-30).

Brown was based out of Atlanta. He was a business consultant working as a CFO. If you needed his skill set but not a full-time CFO, Brown might be your guy. He had several clients over several years, and in 2012 he picked up a sweet multiyear contract in New Jersey.

Two key facts:

(1)  For 2012 and 2013, his only business income was from New Jersey.

(2)  And wouldn’t you know that the IRS audited his 2012 and 2013 returns.

Brown argued that New Jersey was a temporary gig.

In the sense of eternity, he is right. In real time, however, the contract was for three years. The IRS considers one year to be the demarcation between temporary and indefinite. There is probably no deduction if you go indefinite.

But New Jersey could terminate the contract, argued Brown.

Could but not likely, replied the Court.

Brown then wanted to rely on Zbylut.

The IRS wanted to see other paychecks.

Brown argued that in 2013 he started working one week in New Jersey and one week at home.

The IRS wanted to see his travel and other records.

Which he never provided. Why? Who knows.

He argued that he was working on other clients and that focusing solely on cash received during the period under audit was misfocused.

Yep, I get it. Maybe he could not invoice until a job was complete or materially so. Or some client stiffed him.

The Court paused. Provide us a schedule or calendar with client meetings, work assignments, business-related tasks, correspondence. Help us out here.

That seems reasonable. Surely he can come up with telephone records, exchanged e-mails, any snail mail correspondence….

Brown provided nothing.

Folks, the Tax Court has a long-standing rule-of-thumb:

If you fail to produce documentation in your possession that would be favorable to you, the Court will take the presumption that the documentation, if presented, would be unfavorable to you.

And that is what the Court did: it ruled against Brown.

He did not lose because of uninterpretable technical issues. He lost for the most basic reason: he provided no support or documentation for his position.

And I suspect I know why: he really had only one gig and that gig was in New Jersey. There was no travel as defined in the tax Code. His tax home locked arms with his paycheck and they both moved to New Jersey. It’s OK.

But there is no tax deduction.

The Parking Lot Tax

Last year’s Tax Cuts and Jobs Act created a 21% tax on transportation-related fringe benefits provided by nonprofits.

That does not sound so bad until you consider that qualified transportation fringe benefits include:

1.    Transit passes or reimbursement for the same

2.    Use of a commuter highway vehicle or reimbursement for the same

3.    Qualified bicycle commuting reimbursement

4.    Qualified parking expenses or reimbursement for the same

That last one proved to be a shocker.

What started the issue was the new deduction disallowance for qualified transportation fringe benefits paid by taxable employers. For example, if the employer pays for employee parking, up to $260 per month can be excluded from the employee’s 2018 W-2. In the past the employer could deduct that $260 on its tax return. Now it could not. Congress felt that – if taxable employers were to be affected – then nonprofit employers should also be affected.

But how does a nonprofit even pay tax?

It can happen, and it is called unrelated business income. In general, it means that the nonprofit is veering away from its charitable mission and is conducting an activity that is virtually indistinguishable from a for-profit business next door.

The nonprofit has to separately account for this activity. The IRS then spots it a $1,000 exemption. If it has more than a $1,000 in profit then it has to pay tax at the corporate rate – which is now 21%.

This change entered the tax Code in December, 2017 via Code Section 512(a)(7):

      (7)  Increase in unrelated business taxable income by disallowed fringe.

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable under this chapter by reason of section 274 and which is paid or incurred by such organization for any qualified transportation fringe (as defined in section 132(f) ), any parking facility used in connection with qualified parking (as defined in section 132(f)(5)(C) ), or any on-premises athletic facility (as defined in section 132(j)(4)(B) ).

There are three things to note here:

(1)  Congress is treating these disallowed deductions as if they were income to the nonprofit.

(2)  We have to track down the meaning of “qualified parking,” and

(3)  The phrase “deduction is not allowable” has a meaning that is not immediately apparent.

Let’s start with qualified parking, defined as:

… parking provided to an employee on or near the business premises of the employer or on or near a location from which the employee commutes to work …. 

Qualified parking does not include parking provided near the employee’s residence. 

Employer-provided parking includes parking on property an employer owns or leases, parking for which the employer pays, or parking for which an employer reimburses an employee.

So we know that qualified parking is provided near the employer and the employer pays for, reimburses, leases or owns the parking facility.

This makes sense if there is a public garage across the street and the employer pays the garage directly or reimburses an employee who paid the garage. However, how does this work if the employer owns the parking lot?  More specifically, how does this work if the parking lot is available to employees, customers – that is, to everyone and for free?

There is (what appears to be) a Congressional mistake when drafting Code Section 512(a)(7).

In 1994 the IRS published a rule in Notice 94-3, conveniently titled “IRS Explains Rules For Qualified Transportation Fringe Benefits.” Here is Question 10 and its example:

EXAMPLE. Employer Z operates an industrial plant in a rural area in which no commercial parking is available. Z furnishes ample parking for its employees on the business premises, free of charge. The parking provided by Z has a fair market value of $0 because an individual other than an employee ordinarily would not pay to park there.

The answer makes sense. Anyone can park on that lot for free. If an employee parks there, it seems reasonable that the value of the parking would be zero (-0-).

That is not what Code Section 512(a)(7) did:

Unrelated business taxable income of an organization shall be increased by any amount for which a deduction is not allowable ….

There is no reference here to value. To the contrary, the reference is to a deduction – which to an accountant means cost. Parking may be free to the user, but it will cost something to maintain that parking facility. The cost may be a lot or a little, but there is a cost.

The Notice 94-3 rule that tax practitioners had gotten used to was overturned.

Needless to say, there were many questions on what the new rules meant and how to apply them. Consider that a nonprofit is supposed to make quarterly estimated tax payments against any expected unrelated-business-income tax, and guidance was needed sooner rather than later. On December 10, 2018 the IRS published interim guidance (Notice 2018-99) on qualified transportation fringe benefits. 

It started with the easiest example:

A taxable employer pays a garage $12,000 annually so that its employees can park. None of this exceeds the $260 monthly threshold per employee for 2018. The entire $12,000 is non-deductible by the employer.

Introduce any complexity and there are steps to the calculation:   

(1)  Calculate the cost for reserved employee spots.

a.     These costs are disallowed.

(2)  Calculate the primary use of the remaining spots.

a.     If more than 50% is for customers, clients and the general public, the calculation ends.

                                                             i.     Any remaining cost is fully deductible.

b.    If more than 50% is for employees, there is math:

                                                             i.     Calculate the cost for reserved nonemployee parking; these costs are allowed.

                                                           ii.     Calculate the cost for nonreserved employee parking; these costs are disallowed.

Let’s go through an example from the Notice.

An accounting firm leases a parking lot for $10,000 next to its office. The lot has 100 spaces, used by clients and employees. The firm has 60 employees.

(1)  There are no reserved employee parking spaces

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(2)  The primary use is for employees (60/100).

a.     We have math.

(3)  There are no reserved nonemployee parking spaces (think visitor parking).

a.     We have zero (-0-) from this step.

(4)  One must use a reasonable allocation method. The accounting firm determines that employee use constitutes 60% (60/100) of parking lot use during business days, with no adjustment for evenings, weekends or holidays. The disallowance is $6,000 ($10,000 times 60%).

An accounting firm is a taxable entity, so the $6,000 is not deductible on its return.

What if we were talking about a nonprofit? Then the $6,000 magically “transforms” into unrelated business taxable income. The IRS spots $1,000 exemption, so the taxable amount is $5,000. Apply a 21% tax rate and the tax on the parking lot is $1,050.

What if the employer owns the parking lot? What costs could there be to a parking lot?

The IRS thought of this:

For purposes of this notice, “total parking expenses” include, but are not limited to, repairs, maintenance, utility costs, insurance, property taxes, interest, snow and ice removal, leaf removal, trash removal, cleaning, landscape costs, parking lot attendant expenses, security, and rent or lease payments or a portion of a rent or lease payment (if not broken out separately). A deduction for an allowance for depreciation on a parking structure owned by a taxpayer and used for parking by the taxpayer’s employees is an allowance for the exhaustion, wear and tear, and obsolescence of property, and not a parking expense for purposes of this notice.

At a minimum, I anticipate that one is allocating insurance and taxes.

So a nonprofit can have tax because it provides parking to its employees. You may have heard this referred to as the “church parking lot tax.” Yes, churches are 501(c)(3)s, meaning they are nonprofits just like the March of Dimes. Granted, there are additional tax breaks to being a church, such as not having to file a Form 990. The unrelated business income tax is not filed on a Form 990, however; it is filed on a Form 990-T. They both have “990” in their name, but they are separate tax forms. Who knows how many churches will have to file a Form 990-T for the first time for 2018, even though their board has never filed – or even seen - a Form 990.

How can a church have income from its parking lot?

If it charges for parking, obviously. That however is a low probability event.

Another way would be to have reserved employee parking spaces. Those are allocated cost (which morphs into income) immediately.

A third way is the employee:nonemployee calculation. That calculation would be tricky because of the uneven use of a church over an average week. One would somehow weight the use of the parking lot. Church employees are there Monday through Friday. The congregation is there on Sunday and (maybe) one night during the week. Perhaps employee parking is weighted using a factor of eight (hours) and congregational use is weighted using a factor of 2.5 (hours). Hopefully the result is to get congregational use above 50%. Why?

Remember: if nonemployee use at step (2) is more than 50%, the calculation ends. All the church would have to pay tax on is income from reserved employee parking. If that is below $1,000, there is no tax.

There is an effort to include a repeal of Code Section 512(a)(7) on any extender or other bill that Congress may pass, but that would require Congress to be able to pass a bill – any bill – in the near future.

The Notice also has one of the more unusual “make-up” provisions I have seen. Say that you want to do away reserved employee parking (that is, step (1)) because the tax gets expensive. It is way too late to do anything for 2018, as the guidance came out in December. The Notice allows you to make the change by March 31, 2019 and consider it retroactive to January 1, 2018.

Our church would have no step (1) income as long as it did away with reserved employee parking by March 31, 2019. That would mean taking down the sign saying “Pastor Parking Only,” but that may be the best alternative until Congress can correct this mess.

Senate Would Revoke Your Passport If You Owe Taxes

Harry Reid introduced an amendment to a transportation bill before the Senate. The provision allows the Secretary of State to deny or revoke a passport if you owe taxes. Here is the language:

SEC. 7345. REVOCATION OR DENIAL OF PASSPORT IN CASE OF CERTAIN TAX DELINQUENCIES.

(a) IN GENERAL.

If the Secretary receives certification by the Commissioner of Internal Revenue that any individual has a seriously delinquent tax debt in an amount in excess of $50,000, the Secretary shall transmit such certification to the Secretary of State for action with respect to denial, revocation, or limitation of a passport pursuant to section 4 of the Act entitled ‘An Act to regulate the issue and validity of passports, and for other purposes’, approved July 3, 1926 (22 U.S.C. 211a et seq.), commonly known as the ‘Passport Act of 1926’.

Would you believe this nonsense PASSED the Senate? It now goes to the House, which hopefully has more common sense. The current transportation authorization expires at the end of March, so I suppose something will pass.

Do these people scare you – even a little bit?