New Tax On Colleges

I read that Harvard estimates that a change from the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will cost approximately $38 million.

Harvard is referring to the “endowment tax” on colleges and universities.

Have you heard about this?

Let us set up the issue by discussing the taxation of private foundations.

The “best” type of charity (at least tax-wise) is the 501(c)(3). These are the March of Dimes and United Ways, and they are publicly-supported by a broad group of interested donors. In general, this means a large number of individually modest donations. Mind you, there can be an outsized donation (or several), but there are mathematical tests to restrict a limited number of donors from providing a disproportionate amount of the charity’s support.

Then we get to private foundations. In general, this means that a limited number of donors provide a disproportionate amount of support. Say that CTG comes into big bucks and sets up the CTG Family Foundation. There is little question that one donor provided a lopsided amount of donations: that donor would be me. In its classic version, I would be the only one funding the CTG Family Foundation.

There can be issues when a foundation and a person are essentially alter egos, and the Code provides serious penalties should that someone forget the difference. Foundations have enhanced information reporting requirements, and they also pay a 2% income tax on their net investment income. The 2% tax is supposedly to pay for the increased IRS attention given foundations compared to publicly-supported charities.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act created a new tax – the 1.4% tax on endowment income – and it targets an unexpected group: colleges and universities that enroll at least 500 tuition-paying students and have endowment assets of at least $500,000 per student.

Let me think this through. I went to graduate school at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Its student body is approximately 30,000. UMC would need an endowment of at least $15 billion to come within reach of this tax.

I have two immediate thoughts:

(1)  Tax practitioners commonly refer to the 2% tax on foundations as inconsequential, because … well, it is. My fee might be more than the tax; and

(2)  I am having a difficult time getting worked up over somebody who has $15 billion in the bank.

The endowment tax is designed to hit a minimal number of colleges and universities – probably less than 50 in total. It is expected to provide approximately $200 million in new taxes annually, not an insignificant sum but not budget-balancing either. As a consequence, there has been speculation as to its provenance and purpose.

With this Congress has again introduced brain-numbing complexity to the tax Code. For example, the tax is supposed to exclude endowment funds used to carry-on the school’s tax-exempt purpose.  Folks, it does not take 30-plus years of tax practice to argue that everything a school does furthers its tax-exempt purpose, meaning there is nothing left to tax. Clearly that is not the intent of the law, and tax practitioners are breathlessly awaiting the IRS to provide near-Torahic definitions of terms in this area.  

The criticism of the tax has already begun. Here is Harvard referring to its $40 billion endowment:

“We remain opposed to this damaging and unprecedented tax that will not only reduce resources available to colleges and universities to promote excellence in teaching and to sustain innovative research…”

Breathe deeply there, Winchester. Explain again why any school with $40 billion in investments even charges tuition.

Which brings us to Berea College in central Kentucky, south of Lexington. The school has an endowment of approximately $700,000 per student, so it meets the first requirement of the tax. The initial draft of the tax bill would have pulled Berea into its dragnet, but there was bipartisan agreement that the second requirement refer to “tuition-paying” students.

So what?

Berea College does not charge tuition.

NCAA: From Cream Cheese To Endorsements

You may have read that the NCAA voted to allow students to benefit financially from the use of their name, image or likeness.

In truth, their hand was forced when California Governor Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act on Lebron’s television show “The Shop.” Other states, including Florida, were also lining up on the issue.

Newsom was striking at an organization that realized over a $1 billion in revenues last year from “student-athletes,” all the while banning players from receiving any compensation other than scholarships.

Mind you, this is the same organization that used to ban schools from serving bagels with cream cheese. The NCAA argued (with a straight face somehow) that a bagel was a snack but a bagel with cream cheese was a meal. Meals were a no-go.

The tax hook for this post came from North Carolina (U.S.) Senator Richard Burr, who indicated he would introduce a bill to tax scholarships if the student-athlete also earns money from endorsements.

Methinks that Senator Burr is not a fan of the new rule.

Alternatively, he may subscribe to the new-economics theory of taxing something until it stops doing whatever triggered its taxation in the first place.

Did you know that some scholarships are already taxable?

Yep, the plain-old variety.

Scholarships used to be tax-free until 1980. The Code was then changed to look at whether services were being performed as a requirement for receiving the scholarship. Teaching assistantships would now be taxable, for example.

There was further change in 1986, when the Code began taxing scholarships used for living expenses.  If one received a scholarship, it was now important to determine whether it was for tuition or for room-and-board. Tuition was tax-free but room-and-board was not.

COMMENT: This change seems erratic to me, considering that The College Board has reported that living expenses make-up over half the cost of undergraduate education.

Scholarships for non-degree students next became taxable.

I would have to think about what national existential peril we barely avoided with that change to the tax law.

Senator Burr would add another exception-to-the-exception if you could buy a jersey with someone’s name on it. Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa comes to mind. Your being able to buy a jersey with his name and number would make his scholarship taxable. It probably means little in Tua’s case, as he is projected to be a first round NFL draft selection. Take someone in a less prominent sport and the result might not feel as comfortable.

Then again, someone less prominent would probably not get into a payment-for-name, image-or-likeness situation.

The Nick Saban Tax

Have you heard about the “Nick Saban” tax?

Let’s set it up.

There has been a longstanding tax provision limiting the deduction for public company executive compensation to $1 million. Mind you, this is not a restriction on how much you can pay an executive; the restriction only applies to how much you can deduct on a tax return. The restriction does not apply to all executives, either; it applies to the CEO, CFO and three other most-highly-paids.

But there was an exception large enough for the Fortune 500 to drive through. The exception was for “performance.” Magically and almost overnight, virtually all executive compensation packages became based on “performance.” Options were considered performance-based, and eventually options came to be passed around like candy. Realistically, one had to refuse to do any tax planning for this provision to actually apply.

This changed with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act passed in December, 2017. Congress tightened up this code Section (162(m)) by taking away the performance exception. The $1 million cap now has a real bite.

But Congress was still looking for money.

Congress decided to put the same $1 million compensation limit on nonprofits.

This creates a quandary, as nonprofits (generally) do not pay tax. If I were a nonprofit executive and Congress threatened to disallow my deduction, I would not be feeling the tremulous fear of my for-profit peers.

Congress thought of that. They decided that the nonprofit would pay a 21% tax on my behalf.

Whoa. Now you have my attention. Granted, the tax is not on me, but we all know how this works in the real world. Only small children and Congress believes in free. The rest of us have to pay.

Congress passed a tax provision applying the $1 million cap to the five highest- paid employees of a 501(a), which includes a 501(c)(3). Think nonprofits, certain hospitals, colleges and universities and the like.

BTW medical professors were excluded from this, so it appears clear that Congress was trying to reach the athletics programs and their coaches.

But there is a problem.

Here is Code section 4960 imposing the tax:

       (c)  Definitions and special rules.

For purposes of this section-

(1)  Applicable tax-exempt organization.

The term "applicable tax-exempt organization" means any organization which for the taxable year-

(A)  is exempt from taxation under section 501(a) ,

(B)  is a farmers' cooperative organization described in section 521(b)(1) ,

(C)  has income excluded from taxation under section 115(1) , or

(D)  is a political organization described in section 527(e)(1) .

What is that Section 115(1)?

         § 115 Income of states, municipalities, etc.

Gross income does not include-

(1)  income derived from any public utility or the exercise of any essential governmental function and accruing to a State or any political subdivision thereof, or the District of Columbia; or …

What does this mean?

Congress thought that – by extending Section 4960 to reference Section 115(1) – it would reach those entities exempt via Section 115(1).

Entities such as Alabama.

Or the University of Alabama.

Why?

Because the University of Alabama is an instrumentality of the state of Alabama.

And here the tax law goes wonky.

The Courts have looked at the interaction of Sections 115(1) and 511(which is the unrelated business income tax which applies to a nonprofit). Can a state instrumentality (say a university) run a business – say a farm-to-table restaurant chain – and avoid the unrelated business income tax because of Section 115(1)? If that were the case, then Illinois could start a chain called Outfront Steakhouse, make a zillion dollars and never pay tax because of Section 115(1).

The Courts have clarified that is not the case. There is a limit to Section 115(1).

According to that reasoning, it seems to me that Congress should be able to tax those university salaries.

But there is another argument – the doctrine of implied statutory immunity. This arises from our federalist system of government: the federal government has to respect the state government. Under this theory, if the federal government wants to tax a state, it has to say so in an unambiguous manner – that is, it cannot be “implied.”

Continuing our example, if the federal government wanted to tax Illinois for opening a steakhouse chain and locating them adjacent to every Outback Steakhouse location throughout the land, it would have to say something like:

… the [] tax will apply to an entity relying upon Section 115(1) for nontaxability of their [] business activity should that activity be the same or substantially similar to a business activity conducted by a for-profit restaurant chain.”

That is explicit. That breaches implied statutory immunity. The tax would then stick.

Is that what Congress did with the new Section 4960(c) tax?

Nowhere close, it appears.

Under that reasoning the University of Alabama will not pay the Nick Saban tax, as the tax does not reach the University of Alabama.

There are universities clearly affected by this new law: Duke, for example, or Northwestern. They have to pay up. Think of it as the difference between a “public” university and a “tax-exempt” university.

But having the state name in the university’s name, however, does not mean that the university is exempt as “public.” It depends on how the university was organized and chartered. Texas A&M will be affected by the new tax provision, but the University of Texas - Austin will not. It is enough to give one a headache.

What happens next?

The easiest path is for Congress to revise Code section 4960 and clean up the language. Without Congressional action, you can be certain the “public” universities will litigate this matter. They have to.

But the likelihood of the present Congress accomplishing anything seems unlikely, at best.

RERI-ng Its Ugly Head - Part Two

Let’s continue our story of Stephen Ross, the billionaire owner of the Miami Dolphins and of his indirect contribution of an (unusual) partnership interest to the University of Michigan.

What made the partnership interest unusual was that it represented a future ownership interest in a partnership owning real estate. The real estate was quite valuable because of a sweet lease. When that ship came in, the future interest was going to be worth crazy money.

That ship was a “successor member interest” or “SMI.”

We talked about the first case, which went before the Tax Court in 2014 and involved legal motions. The case then proceeded, with a final decision in July, 2017.

COMMENT: Yes, it can take that long to get a complex case through Tax Court. Go after Apple, for example, and your kid will likely be finishing high school before that tax case is finally resolved.

The SMI was purchased for $2.95 million.

Then donated to the University of Michigan for approximately $33 million.

COMMENT: This is better than FaceBook stock.

After two years, the University of Michigan sold the SMI (to someone related to the person who started this whole story) for around $2 million.

OBSERVATION: Nah, FaceBook stock would have been better.

Now RERI was in Court and explaining how something that was and will be worth either $2 or $3 million is generating a tax deduction of $33 million.

And it has to do with the SMI being “part of” of something but not “all of” something.  SMI is the “future” part in “all of” a partnership owning valuable leased real estate in California.

The concept is that someone has to value the “all of” something. Once that is done, one can use IRS tables to value the “part of” something. Granted, there are hoops and hurdles to get into those tables, but that is little obstacle to a shrewd tax attorney.

Ross found a shrewd tax attorney.

Virtually all the heavy lifting is done when valuing the “all of” part. One then dumps that number into the IRS tables, selects a number of years and an interest rate and – voila! The entrée round, my fellow tax gastronomes, featuring a $33 million tasty secret ingredient.

The pressure is on the first number: the “all of.”

This will require a valuation.

There are experts who do these things, of course.

Their valuation report will go with your tax return.  No surprise. We should be thankful they do not also have to do a slide presentation at the IRS. 

And there will be a (yet another) tax form to highlight the donation. That is Form 8283, and – in general – you can anticipate seeing this form when you donate more than $5,000 in property.

There are questions to be answered on Form 8283. We have spoken about noncash donations in the past, and how this area has become a tax minefield. Certain things have to be done a certain way, and there is little room for inattention. Sometimes the results are cruel.

Form 8283 wants, for example:

·      A description of the property

·      If a partial interest, whether there is a restriction on the property

·      Date acquired

·      How acquired

·      Appraised fair market value

·      Cost

I suspect the Court was already a bit leery with a $3 million property generating a $33 million donation.

And the Court noticed something …

The Form 8283 left out the cost.

Yep, the $3 million.

Remember: there is little room for inattention with this form.

Question is: does the number mean anything in this instance?

Rest assured that RERI was bailing water like a madman, arguing that it “substantially complied” with the reporting requirements. It relied heavily on the Bond decision, where the Court stated that the reporting requirements were:

“… directory and not mandatory”

The counterpunch to Bond was Smith:

“ the standard for determining substantial compliance under which we ‘consider whether … provided sufficient information to permit … to evaluate the reported contributions, as intended by Congress.’”

To boil this down to normal-speak: could RERI’s omission have influenced a reasonable person (read: IRS) to question or not question the deduction. After all, the very purpose of Form 8283 was to provide the IRS enough information to sniff-out stuff like this.

Here is the Court:

“The significant disparity between the claimed fair market value and the price RERI paid to acquire the SMI just 17 months before it assigned the SMI to the University, had it been disclosed, would have alerted respondent to a potential overvaluation of the SMI”

Oh oh.

“Because RERI failed to provide sufficient information on its Form 8283 to permit respondent to evaluate its purported contribution, …we cannot excuse on substantial compliance grounds RERI’s omission from the form of its basis in the SMI.”

All that tax planning, all the meetings and paperwork and yada-yada was for naught, because someone did not fill-out the tax form correctly and completely.

I wonder if the malpractice lawsuit has already started.

The Court did not have to climb onto a high-wire and juggle dizzying code sections or tax doctrines to deny RERI’s donation deduction. It could just gaze upon that Form 8283 and point-out that it was incomplete, and that its incompleteness prejudiced the interests of the government. It was an easy way out.

And that is precisely what the Court did.

Getting The IRS To Believe A College Student Paid For … College

We can argue whether it is a good thing that so many economically-related transactions are reported to the IRS.

It is not just the drag on the economy - which would include practitioners like me, I suppose. It has also allowed the IRS to increasingly delegate its compliance responsibilities to computer algorithms, often functioning without human eyes sparing a glance at the endless notices the IRS sends every year.

And that sets up the problem.  

You see, the notice assumes that you are wrong, and the IRS will likely revise your account – and bill you - should you not reply. That means that you are spending time resolving the matter, or you are sending the notice to me and I am spending time. You and I are being deputized as ad hoc IRS employees.

Personally I want a paycheck and retirement benefits.

This arrangement works fine as long as there is a balance. You agree not to send works of fiction to the IRS and they agree not to contact you like a kid in college wanting money.

That balance is increasingly a thing of the past. Perhaps as a consequence, I am reading or hearing more often that taxpayers should be able to sue the IRS for professional fees incurred with these notices. I am not certain if that means that my client would pay me and then sue, or whether I would sue to receive my fee, but you get the idea. It would be a “reverse penalty” on the IRS. 

I am looking at a pro se decision from the Tax Court. As we have discussed before, “pro se” means the taxpayer is representing himself/herself. It does not technically mean there is no tax practitioner present (for example, I can represent a client in a pro se case), but it probably does mean that there is not a lot of money at issue.

Angela Terrell was a college student. During 2010 and 2011 she was attending Hampton University in Virginia. In the fall of 2010 she registered for the 2011 spring semester. In November, 2010 the University billed her $2,460 for the upcoming semester. In January, 2011 they billed an additional $1,230.

She was borrowing to go through school. In January, after the add/drop period ended, her student loan released $10,199 directly to the university. She paid her tuition and used the rest for living expenses.

Let’s go to the end of the year. The university sent a 1099 for 2011 (technically, a Form 1098-T, but we are on a roll). It showed $1,180 (the $1,230 billed less fees of $50). It did not show what she actually paid.

COMMENT: This reporting was allowable that year.

Angela filed her 2011 tax return and claimed the American Opportunity credit, one of the education credits in the Code. She claimed $2,500.

Wouldn’t you know the IRS sent her a notice? They saw the $2,500. They also saw the 1099 for $1,180.  

The IRS disallowed her credit – in full. They did not even spot her the $1,180.

Surely someone at the IRS would recognize what happened and close the file.

Perhaps in a galaxy far away. In our galaxy Angela and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Did I mention that Angela was a COLLEGE student?

She submitted an account statement from the University – on official letterhead – detailing her tuition charges and payments.

The IRS argued that the 1099 said $1,180, she provided a different number and consequently they could not verify the credit. There was nothing more to see.

Does it sound to you like the IRS even listened to her? 

Here is the Court:

The only dollar amount appearing on that form … is in the box that shows the ‘amounts billed’ for tuition during calendar year 2011. The amount billed to petitioner during 2011 does not control the size of her credit; the relevant number is the qualified tuition that she actually paid during 2011. The Form 1098-T has no entry in box 1, which was supposed to show ‘payments received’ for qualified tuition.”

The Court decided in her favor.

Angela’s case looks very much like the IRS pursuing a frivolous argument, not to mention the inability of IRS machinery to resolve a “duh”-level tax issue at the earliest possible point of contact. Reverse the situation and the IRS would not hesitate to hit you with every penalty imaginable.

A Tax CPA Not Filing Taxes

My daughter goes to the University of Tennessee. Perhaps it is because she is in Knoxville that the following story about Edgar H. Gee Jr. caught my eye.

Mr. Gee is a CPA and has (had?) a small accounting firm on the west side of Knoxville off Kingston Pike. He has been at this for a while, as he is going on 40 years of professional experience.  His resume is nothing to snicker at:

·    He has published articles in the Tax Adviser (a professional publication)

·    He has testified before the U.S. House of Representatives Subcommittee on   the Oversight of IRS Activities

·    He is co-author of PPC’s Guide to Worker Classification

·    He is the winner of the Max Block Award by NYSSCPAs for Distinguished Article of the Year 2000

·    He is a past president of the Knoxville Chapter of the Tennessee Society of Certified Public Accountants

·    He was the recipient of the Discussion Leader of the Year award from the Tennessee Society of CPAs in 2001

What did he do?

Well, the IRS Office of Professional Responsibility disbarred him because he did not pay taxes for tax years 1997 through 2005. The OPR said he had engaged in disreputable conduct by willfully evading his taxes for nine years. The amount of taxes, including interest and penalties, was approximately $340,000.

I guess he can continue lecturing, but he is not practicing before the IRS again.

What argument does a tax CPA present when he hasn’t filed taxes for almost a decade? I didn’t know? That kite is just not going to fly.

It’s just sad.

BTW I do not know Mr. Gee, but maybe I’ll run into him sometime. I do hope that he is not teaching tax at UTK.