Failing To Take A Paycheck

I am looking at a case involving numerous issues. The one that caught my attention was imputed wage income from a controlled company in the following amounts:

2004                    $198,740

2005                    $209,200

2006                    $220,210

2007                    $231,800

2008                    $244,000

Imputed wage income means that someone should have received a paycheck but did not.

Perhaps they used the company to pay personal expenses, I think to myself, and the IRS is treating those expenses as additional W-2 income. Then I see that the IRS is also assessing constructive dividends in the following amounts:

2004                    $594,170

2005                    $446,782

2006                    $375,246

2007                    $327,503

2008                    $319,854 

The constructive dividends would be those personal expenses.

What happened here?

Let’s look at the Hacker case.

Barry and Celeste Hacker owned and were the sole shareholders of Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc., an Oklahoma corporation that operated daycare centers throughout Tulsa. Mr. Hacker also worked as an electrician, and the two were also the sole shareholders of another company - Hacker Corp (HC).

The Hackers were Blossom’s only corporate officers. Mrs. Hacker oversaw the workforce and directed the curriculum, for example, and Mr. Hacker was responsible for accounting and finance functions.

Got it. She sounds like the president of the company, and he sounds like the treasurer.

For the years at issue, the Hackers did not take a paycheck from Blossom.

COMMENT: In isolation, this does not have to be fatal.

Rather than pay the Hackers directly, Blossom made payments to HC, which in turn paid wages to the Hackers.

This strikes me as odd. Whereas it is not unusual to select one company out of several (related companies) to be a common paymaster, generally ALL payroll is paid through the paymaster. That is not what happened here. Blossom paid its employees directly, except for Mr. and Mrs. Hacker.

I am trying to put my finger on why I would do this. I see that Blossom is a C corporation (meaning it pays its own tax), whereas HC is an S corporation (meaning its income is included on its shareholders’ tax return). Maybe they were doing FICA arbitrage. Maybe they did not want anyone at Blossom to see how much they made.  Maybe they were misadvised.

Meanwhile, the audit was going south. Here are few issues the IRS identified:

(1)  The Hackers used Blossom credit cards to pay for personal expenses, including jewelry, vacations, and other luxury items. The kids got on board too, although they were not Blossom employees.

(2)  HC paid for vehicles it did not own used by employees it did not have. We saw a Lexus, Hummer, BMW, and Cadillac Escalade.

(3) Blossom hired a CPA in 2007 to prepare tax returns. The Hackers gave him access to the bank statements but failed to provide information about undeposited cash payments received from Blossom parents.

NOTE: Folks, you NEVER want to have “undeposited” business income. This is an indicium of fraud, and you do not want to be in that neighborhood.

(4)  The Hackers also gave the CPA the credit card statements, but they made no effort to identify what was business and what was family and personal. The CPA did what he could, separating the obvious into a “Note Receivable Officer” account. The Hackers – zero surprise at this point in the story - made no effort to repay the “Receivable” to Blossom.  

(5) Blossom paid for a family member’s wedding. Mr. Hacker called it a Blossom-oriented “celebration.”  

(6) In that vein, the various trips to the Bahamas, Europe, Hawaii, Las Vegas, and New Orleans were also business- related, as they allowed the family to “not be distracted” as they pursued the sacred work of Blossom.

There commonly is a certain amount of give and take during an audit. Not every expense may be perfectly documented. A disbursement might be coded to the wrong account. The company may not have charged someone for personal use of a company-owned vehicle. It happens. What you do not want to do, however, is keep piling on. If you do – and I have seen it happen – the IRS will stop believing you.

The IRS stopped believing the Hackers.

Frankly, so did I.

The difference is, the IRS can retaliate.

How?

Easy.

The Hackers were officers of Blossom.

Did you know that all corporate officers are deemed to be employees for payroll tax purposes? The IRS opened a worker classification audit, found them to be statutory employees, and then went looking for compensation.

COMMENT: Well, that big “Note Receivable Officer” is now low hanging fruit, isn’t it?

Whoa, said the Hackers. There is a management agreement. Blossom pays HC and HC pays us.

OK, said the IRS: show us the management agreement.

There was not one, of course.

These are related companies, the Hackers replied. This is not the same as P&G or Alphabet or Tesla. Our arrangements are more informal.

Remember what I said above?

The IRS will stop believing you.

Petitioner has submitted no evidence of a management agreement, either written or oral, with Hacker Corp. Likewise, petitioner has submitted no evidence, written or otherwise, as to a service agreement directing the Hackers to perform substantial services on behalf of Hacker Corp to benefit petitioner, or even a service or employment agreement between the Hackers and Hacker Corp.”

Bam! The IRS imputed wage income to the Hackers.

How bad could it be, you ask. The worst is the difference between what Blossom should have paid and what Hacker Corp actually paid, right?

Here is the Court:

Petitioner’s arguments are misguided in that wages paid by Hacker Corp do not offset reasonable compensation requirements for the services provided by petitioner’s corporate officers to petitioner.”

Can it go farther south?

Respondent also determined that petitioner is liable for employment taxes, penalties under section 6656 for failure to deposit tax, and accuracy-elated penalties under section 6662(a) for negligence.”

How much in penalties are we talking about?

2005                    $17,817

2006                    $18,707

2007                    $19,576

2008                    $20,553

I do not believe this is a case about tax law as much as it is a case about someone pushing the boundary too far. Could the IRS have accepted an informal management agreement and passed on the “statutory employee” thing? Of course, and I suspect that most times out of ten they would. But that is not what we have here. Somebody was walking much too close to the boundary - if not walking on the fence itself - and that somebody got punished.

Our case this time was Blossom Day Care Centers, Inc v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-86.

Abusing A Tax-Exempt

I am looking at a tax-exempt case that went off the rails.

There are rules in the tax-exempt area to encourage one to keep their nose clean. The rules can be different depending on whether the entity is a private foundation or not. The reason is that a foundation is generally considered more susceptible to influence than a “classic” tax-exempt, such as a 501(c)(3), as a foundation generally has a smaller pool of donors.

A doctor (Dr O) organized a 501(c)(3) called American Medical Missionary Care, Inc (AMMC) in 1998. In 2000 it applied for and received tax-exempt status from the IRS. Its exempt purpose was to operate a clinic in Michigan providing medical examination and treatment for individuals unable to afford such services.

Sounds like a great cause to me.

Dr O served as president. His spouse (Mrs O) served on the board of directors as well as secretary and treasurer over the years.

In 2013 AMMC filed its Form 990 reporting compensation of $26,000 paid Dr O and $21,000 paid Mrs O.

AMMC however issued W-2s of $26,000 apiece.

There is a mistake here, but it is not necessarily a big deal. They should tighten down the numbers going forward, though.

On its 2014 Form 990 AMMC reported no compensation to Dr or Mrs O.

Seems odd. Compensation does not tend to turn off and on like a spigot.

Meanwhile, Dr O had gotten in trouble with the Michigan Board of Medicine in 2014. He was required to pay a significant amount of money and also relinquished his medical license. Dr O eventually returned to Nigeria in 2017, leaving his wife in the United States.

The IRS selected the nonprofit for examination.

The revenue agent dug around the AMMC’s various bank accounts for 2014 and found biweekly checks to Mrs O of $1,000 each. There were also certified checks ranging from $6,000 to $10,000. In all, Dr and Mrs O had received cash, checks and money orders from AMMC totaling approximately $130 thousand.

The 990 showed the $130 grand as a loan receivable from Dr O.

Oh please.

Dr O got into trouble and needed cash. He turned to AMMC because that is where the money was. A loan implies an ability to repay and intent to collect, all within the normal course and conduct of business. I seriously doubt that is what we had here.

Dr O and Mrs O had outsized influence over the (c)(3). Who was going to tell them no, much less point out that making loans to officers and board members is minefield territory in the tax Code?

The IRS revenue agent felt the same way and assessed a tier-one penalty.

Penalties in the nonprofit area can be a bit different. There can be penalties on an individual or on the entity itself, for example. The more severe penalties revolve around “excess benefit” transactions and “disqualified persons,” which are – as you might suspect – people with substantial authority or influence over the tax-exempt. Dr O organized AMMC years before and served as its president. He was a poster child for a disqualified person.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500. It also revoked the exempt status of AMMC.

Let’s walk through the tiered penalty.

The IRS assessed a tier-one penalty of $32,500 on the O's. This is 25% of the $130,000 that Dr and Mrs O drew in 2014. The reason I call it a “tier-one” is that there is a possible “tier two.” To avoid a tier-two, one has to return the money to the tax-exempt.

What happens if one fails to return the money?

The penalty goes to 200%.

This is one of the severest penalties in the tax Code, and Congress intended it that way. Years ago, the only recourse the IRS had was to revoke the entity’s exempt status. Congress felt that this response was a sledgehammer, and it instead created a set of “intermediate” penalties, shifting the burden to the person benefiting from the transaction. With that as background, Congress did not consider 200 percent as excessive.

So the O’s now had another penalty of $230,000.

COMMENT: 200 percent of $130,000 is $260,000, not $230,000. The Court made some tweaks which need not concern us here.

You may be wondering why Dr O would care, if he was safely ensconced in Nigeria.

For one, his wife was still in the United States.

And she was on the Board. She had served as secretary and treasurer. She was a disqualified person in her own right. She was also considered to be a disqualified person by being married to a disqualified person. She was not getting out of this snare.

Mrs O was going to get hammered.

She fielded a last stand:

(1) She argued that much of the money was distributed to needy people to help with rent and utilities, after-school programs for the kids and so forth.

Problem was: she had no records to substantiate any of this. She had not drawn checks in a manner commensurate with this storyline, although she testified that she would hold and re-deposit the certified checks back into the (c)(3) if and as needed. The Court was – by this point – quite skeptical of anything she had to say.

(2)  She argued that much of the money represented compensation to either her or both Dr O and her.

This was her best argument, but unfortunately this route was closed to her.

You see, AMMC should have issued W-2s if it intended for the monies to represent compensation. The tax-exempt did not issue W-2s for 2014. It did not even authorize compensation in its minutes. Some things have to be done currently, and this is one of those things.

A W-2 (or 1099) would have saved a penalty equal to twice its face amount. That is, a $26,000 W-2 to Dr O would have saved a penalty of $52,000 ($26,000 times 200%).

It was a worst-case scenario for the O’s.

Then again, they abused AMCC. That money did not belong to the O’s. It belonged to the (c)(3). The exempt purpose of AMMC was to assist the poor with access to medical care, not to enrich its founding family after the loss of a medical license.

Our case this time was Ononuju v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-94.

 

Excess Business Loss Problems

To a tax accountant, October 15 signifies the extended due date for individual tax returns.

As a generalization, our most complicated returns go on extension. There is a reason: it is likely that the information necessary to prepare the return is not yet available. For example, you are waiting on a Schedule K-1 from a partnership, LLC or S corporation. That K-1 might not be prepared until after April 15. There is only so much work an office of accountants can generate within 75 days, irrespective of government diktats.

More recently I am also seeing personal returns being extended because we are expecting a broker’s information report to be revised and perhaps revised again. It happens repetitively.

Let’s talk about a new twist for 2018 personal returns. There are a few twists, actually, but let’s focus on the “excess business loss” rule.

First, this applies only to noncorporate taxpayers. As noncorporate taxpayers, that could be you or me.

Its purpose is to stop you or me from claiming losses past a certain amount.

Now think about this for a moment.

Go out there, sign a sports contract for big bucks and Uncle Sam is draped all over you like a childhood best friend.

Get booted from the league, however, and you get a very different response.

How can losses happen?

Easy. Let me give you an example. We represent a sizeable contractor. The swing in their numbers from year-to-year can gray your hair. When times are good, they are virtually printing money. When times are bad, it feels like they are taking-on the national debt.

I presume one does not even know the meaning of risk if one wants to be an owner there.

To me, fairness requires that the tax law share in my misery when I am losing money if it also wants me to cooperatively send taxes when I am making money. Call me old-fashioned that way.

The “excess business loss” rule is not concerned with old-fashioned fairness.

Let’s use some numbers to make sense of this.

          Dividends                      100,000

 Capital gains                  400,000

          Schedule K-1                (600,000)

The concept is that you can offset a business loss against nonbusiness income, but only up to a point. That point is $250,000 if you are nonmarried and twice that if you are. Using the above numbers, we have:

 Dividends                       100,000

          Capital gains                  400,000

          Schedule K-1                (600,000)

                                                   (100,000)

          Excess business loss     100,000

         

Interest, dividends and capital gains are the classic nonbusiness income categories. You are allowed to offset $500,000 of nonbusiness income (assuming married) but you are showing $600,000 of business losses. The excess business loss rule will magically adjust $100,000 into your income tax return to get the numbers to work.

It is like a Penn and Teller show.

Let’s tweak our example:

Wages                            100,000

Dividends                       100,000

         Capital gains                  400,000

         Schedule K-1                (600,000)

What now? Do you get to include that W-2 as part of your business income, meaning that you no longer have a $100,000 excess business loss?

Believe it or not, tax professionals are not certain.

Here is what sets up the issue:

The Joint Committee of Taxation published its “Bluebook” describing Congress’ intention when drafting the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act. In it, the JCT states that “an excess business loss … does not take into account gross income, or gains or deductions attributable to the trade or business of performing services as an employee.”        

The “trade or business of performing services as an employee” is fancy talk for wages and salaries.

However, the IRS came out with a shiny new tax form for the excess business loss calculation. The instructions indicate that one should add-up all business income, including wages and tips.

We have two different answers.

Let’s get nerdy, as it matters here.

Elsewhere in the Code, we also have a new 20% deduction for “qualified business income.” The Code has to define “business income,” as that is the way tax law works. The Code does so by explicitly excluding the trade or business of “being an employee.”

There is a concept of statutory construction that comes into play. If one Code section has to EXPLICITLY exclude wages (that is, the trade or business of being an employee), then it is reasonably presumable that business income includes wages.

Which means foul when another Code section pops up and says “No, it does not.”

Of course, no one will know for certain until a court decides.

Or Congress defies all reasonable expectations and actually works rather than enable the Dunning-Kruger psychopaths currently housed there.

Why does this “excess business loss” Code section even exist?

Think $150 billion in taxes over 10 years. That is why.

To be fair, the excess is not lost. It carries over to the following year as a net operating loss.

That probably means little if you have just lost your shirt and I am calling you to make an extension payment on April 15 – you know, because of that “excess business loss” thing.

Meanwhile tax professionals have to march on. We cannot wait. After all, those noncorporate returns are due October 15.

The New Qualified Business Deduction

I spent a fair amount last week looking over the new IRS Regulations on the qualified business deduction. It was a breezy and compact 184 pages, although it reads longer than that.

I debated blogging on this topic. While one of the most significant tax changes in decades, the deduction is difficult to discuss without tear-invoking side riffs. 

But – if you are in business and you are not a “C” corporation (that is, the type that pays its own taxes) - you need to know about this new deduction.

Let’s swing the bat:

1.    This is a business deduction. It is 20% of something. We will get back to what that something is.

2.    There historically has been a spread between C-corporation tax rates and non-C-corporation tax rates. It is baked into the system, and tax advisors have gotten comfortable understanding its implications. The new tax law rattled the cage by reducing the C-corporation tax rate to 21%. Without some relief for non-C-corporation entities, lawyers and accountants would have had their clients folding their S corporation, partnership and LLC tents and moving them to C-corporation campgrounds.

3.    It is sometimes called a “passthrough” deduction, but that is a misnomer. It is more like a non-C-corporation deduction. A sole proprietorship can qualify, as well as rentals, farms and traditional passthroughs like S corporations, LLCs and partnerships. Heck even estates and trusts are in on the act.

4.    But not all businesses will qualify. There are two types of businesses that will not qualify:

a.     Believe it or not, in the tax world your W-2 job is considered a trade or business. It is the reason that you are allowed to deduct your business mileage (at least, before 2018 you were). Your W-2 however will not qualify for purposes of this deduction.

b.    Certain types of businesses are not invited to the party: think doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar. Think of them as the “not too cool” crowd.

                                                   i.There is however a HUGE exception.

5.   Congress wanted you to have skin in the game in order to get this 20% deduction. Skin initially meant employees, so to claim this deduction you needed Payroll. At the last moment Congress also allowed somebody with substantial Depreciable Property to qualify, as some businesses are simply not set-up with a substantial workforce in mind. If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, however, you do not get to play.

a.     But just like (4)(b) above, there is a HUGE exception.

6.   Let’s set up the HUGE exception:

a.     If you do not have Payroll or Depreciable Property, you do not get to play.

b.    If you are one of “those businesses” - doctors, dentists, lawyers, accountants and similar - you do not get to play.

c.     Except …

                                                   i. … if your income is below certain limits, you still get to play.

                                                 ii. The limit is $157,500 for non-marrieds and $315,000 for marrieds.

                                              iii. Hit the limit and you provoke math:

1.    If you are non-married, there is a phase-out range of $50 grand. Get to $207,500 and you are asked to leave.

2.    If you are married, double the range to $100 grand; at $415,000 you too have to leave.

                                               iv. Let’s consider an easy example: A married dentist with household taxable income of less than $315,000 can claim the passthrough deduction, as long as the income is not from a W-2.

1.    At $415,000 that dentist cannot claim anything and has to leave.

                                                 v. Depending on the fact pattern, the mathematics are like time-travelling to a Led Zeppelin concert. The environment is familiar, but everything has a disorienting fog about it.

1.    Why?

a.     The not-too-cool crowd has to leave the party once they get to $207,500/$415,000.

b.    Simultaneously, the too-cool crowd has to ante-up either Payroll and/or Depreciable Property as they get to $207,500/$415,000. There is no more automatic invitation just because their income is below a certain level.

c.     And both (a) and (b) are going on at the same time.

                                                                                                               i.     While not Stairway to Heaven, the mathematics are … interesting.

7.    The $207,500/$415,000 entertainment finally shows up: Payroll and Depreciable Property. Queue the music.

a.     The deduction starts at 20% of the specific trade or business’s net profit.

b.    It can go down. Here is how:

                                                   i. You calculate half of your Payroll.

                                                 ii. You calculate one-quarter of your Payroll and add 2.5% of your Depreciable Assets.

                                              iii. You take the bigger number.

                                               iv. You are not done. You next take that number and compare it to the 20% number from (a).

                                                 v. Take the smaller number.

c.     You are not done yet.

                                                   i. Take your taxable income without the passthrough deduction, whatever that deduction may someday be. May we live long enough.

                                                 ii. If you have capital gains included in your taxable income, there is math. In short, take out the capital gain. Bad capital gain.

                                              iii. Take what’s left and multiply by 20%.

                                               iv. Compare that number to (7)(b)(v).

1.    Take the smaller number.

8.    Initially one was to do this calculation business by business.

a.     Tax advisors were not looking forward to this.

b.    The IRS last week issued Regulations allowing one to combine trades or businesses (within limits, of course).

                                                   i. And tax advisors breathed a collective sigh of relief.

c.     But not unsurprisingly, the IRS simultaneously took away some early planning ideas that tax advisors had come up with.

                                                   i. Like “cracking” a business between the too-cool and not-too-cool crowds.  

And there is a high-altitude look at the new qualified business deduction.

If you have a non-C-corporation business, hopefully you have heard from your tax advisor. If you have not, please call him/her. This new deduction really is a big deal.

How To Lose A Tax Deduction For Wages Paid

This weeks’ tax puzzler involves a mom and her kids.

We again are talking about attorneys. Both mom and dad are attorneys, and mom is self-employed.

Sometimes she brought her children to the office, where they helped her with the following:

·        answering the telephone

·        mail

·        greeting clients

·        photocopying

·        shredding unneeded documents

·        moving files

Mom believed that having her children work would help them understand the value of money and lay the foundations for a lifelong work ethic.

She had three kids, and for 2006, 2007 and 2008 she deducted wages of $5,500, $10,953 and $12,273, respectively.

There are tax advantages to hiring a minor child. For example, if the child is age 17 or younger, there are no social security (that is, FICA) taxes. In addition, there is no federal unemployment tax for a child under age 21, but that savings pales in comparison to the FICA savings.

Then you have other options, such as having the child fund an IRA. All IRAs require income subject to social security tax. It doesn’t matter if one is an employee (FICA tax) or is self-employed (self-employment taxes), but social security is the price of admission.

Her children were all under the age of ten. Can you imagine what those IRAs would be worth 50 years from now?

The IRS disagreed with her deducting payroll, and they wound up in Tax Court.

Your puzzler question is: why?

(1) You: The Court did not believe that the kids really did anything. Maybe she was just trying to deduct their allowances.

Me: The tax law becomes skeptical when related parties are involved, and you cannot get much more related than a mother and her children.  It was heightened in this case as the children were so young. For the most part, though, the Court believed her when she described what the children did.

(2) You: Mom used the money she “paid” the kids for their support – like paying their school tuition, for example.

Me: The tax law disallows a deduction if the money is disguised support, which tax law expects to be provided a dependent child. In this case, the Court saw the children buying books, games and normal kid items; some money also went to Section 529 plans. The Court did not believe that mom was trying to deduct support expenses.

(3) You: She could not provide paperwork to back-up her deductions. What if she paid the kids in cash, for example?

Me: Good job. One reads that the Court wanted to believe her, but she presented no records. She did not provide bank statements showing the kids depositing their paychecks, presumably because the children did not have bank accounts.

She did not provide copies of the Section 529 plans. That was so easy to do that I found the failure odd.

At least she could show the Court a Form W-2.

Mom had not even issued W-2s.

The Court was exasperated.

It allowed her a deduction of $250 per child, as it believed that the kids worked. It could not do more in the absence of any documentation.

And there is the answer to the puzzler.

Too often it is not mind-numbing tax details that trip-up a taxpayer. Sometimes there is just a lapse of common sense.

Like issuing a W-2 if you want the IRS to believe you paid wages to somebody.