Lawless In Seattle

Did you hear that Seattle has a new income tax?

Sort of. Eventually. But maybe not.

The tax rate is 2.25 percent and will tag you if you are (1) single and earn more than $250,000 per year or (2) married and earn more than $500,000.

This is big-bucks land, and we normally would not dwell on this except…

Washington state has no income tax.

Let us get this right: Seattle wants to have an income tax in a state that has no income tax. Washington state considered an income tax back in the 1930s, but the courts found it unconstitutional.

You or I would live within the Seattle city limits … why?

Surely there are nice suburbs we could call home. Heck, Bill Gates and Jeff Bezos do not live in Seattle; they live in the suburbs.

There appear to be legal issues with this tax.

The state constitution, for example, requires taxes to be uniform within a class of property. The pro-tax side questions whether income is “property.”

The anti-tax side provides the Power Inc v Huntley case (1951), wherein the Washington Supreme Court stated:

It is no longer subject to question in this court that income is property.”

Must be something cryptic about the wording.

Then there is a law that bans Washington cities from taxing net income.

The pro-tax side argues that they are not taxing “net” income. No sir, they are taxing “adjusted” or “modified” or “found-under-the-cushions” income instead.

The anti-tax side says: seriously?

Then you have the third issue that Washington cities must have state authority to enact taxes.

The pro-tax side says it can do this under their Licenses and Permits authority.

RCW 35A.82.020

Licenses and permits—Excises for regulation.

A code city may exercise the authority authorized by general law for any class of city to license and revoke the same for cause, to regulate, make inspections and to impose excises for regulation or revenue in regard to all places and kinds of business, production, commerce, entertainment, exhibition, and upon all occupations, trades and professions and any other lawful activity: PROVIDED, That no license or permit to engage in any such activity or place shall be granted to any who shall not first comply with the general laws of the state.

No such license shall be granted to continue for longer than a period of one year from the date thereof and no license or excise shall be required where the same shall have been preempted by the state, nor where exempted by the state, including, but not limited to, the provisions of RCW 36.71.090 and chapter 73.04 RCW relating to veterans.

I am not making this up, folks.

Here is the mayor:

This legislation will face a legal challenge.”

And green is a color.

But let me tell you something: we welcome that legal challenge. We welcome that fight.”

Then why pick a fight, Floyd?

… lowering the property tax burden …, addressing the homelessness crisis; providing affordable housing, education and transit; … creating green jobs … meeting carbon reduction goals.”

Got it: verbigeration, the new college major. It will get you to that $15 minimum wage. At least until those jobs go away because they are too expensive.

Speaking of expense: who is bankrolling this issue while it is decided in court? Has the city banked so much money that a guaranteed legal battle is worth it?

If we need to pack the courts, will you be there with me?” thundered a councilperson.

Pack the courts? Should we bring bats too?  

The pro-tax side wants to be sued, hoping that a judge will legislate from the bench.

Needless to say, the anti-tax side is resisting, with calls for “civil disobedience.”

With exhortations not to file returns.

The state chair of the Republican party is encouraging

“… non-compliance, non-violent and non-paying”

Sounds almost Gandhi-esque.

It appears that neither side has any intention to observe – heck, even acknowledge – any pretense of law.

I am at a loss to see how this is good for anybody.

Facebook and Tax Planning With Trusts

You may know that Facebook is going public. This means an IPO, hotly anticipated and all but guaranteed to make the founders incredibly wealthy. You may have read about Eduardo Saverin, who has renounced his U.S. citizenship and intends to become a resident of Singapore. There is discussion about tax motivations for his expatriation. Could be. Singapore has more lenient tax treatment of capital gains than the U.S. To be fair, Saverin only became a U.S. citizen in 1998, so his ties may not be as strong as that of a natural-born citizen.

I intend to blog about on Saverin and his tax implications, but for today I wanted to talk about founder Mark Zuckerberg. Facebook’s prospectus lists eight “annuity trusts” set up by insiders, including Zuckerberg, Dustin Moskovitz, Sean Parker, Sheryl Sandberg, Reid Hoffman and Michelle Yee. These trusts hold approximately 22 million shares, which could be worth around $700 million at IPO.

You can afford a lot of tax planning with $700 million. The insiders have not spoken about this matter, nor should one expect them to. I have been reading tax commentary speculating that these trusts are grantor retained annuity trusts, also called GRATs. I agree. Let’s talk about it.

A GRAT is used to shift wealth from one taxpayer to another. In my experience, it has been from one generation to another.

The GRAT has to pay-out a stream of payments to its settlor (the grantor). The payment stream is called the annuity. There are two more considerations: how much to pay out and for how long. The shortest GRAT I have seen is two years. At the end of the term, the remaining money in the GRAT goes to the beneficiary.

All right, so the settlor gifts the remaining money in the GRAT. There may be gift tax, depending on the amount of money gifted. There is a version of a GRAT where “nothing” passes at the end, so the gift is zero. Why the quotation mark around “nothing?” Ah, there is where tax planners make their money.

You see, “nothing” does not actually mean nothing. In this area of the tax world, “nothing” can be something, and quite a lot of something. The “nothing” is a mathematical calculation and not an actual dollar amount. The key to the calculation is the interest rate. 

Say that I put $1 million into a GRAT. I want payments over ten years. I have to use an interest rate, because payments are being made over time. The IRS publishes minimum interest rates for this purpose. As long as I use their interest rate (or higher), there is no problem. Say that their interest rate is 5% and I am looking to zero-out the GRAT. In year one I would take out $150,000 ($1,000,000 divided by 10 years plus $1,000,000 times 5%). What if the money was invested in something that pays – or appreciates – at more than 5%? That is the key that starts the GRAT engine. Let’s say that the investment actually pays 10%. The GRAT is paying out 5%, or only ½ of its actual earnings. The trust is accumulating, isn’t it? Let it accumulate for 10 years and I can transfer a tidy sum at the end. However, for IRS purposes I am deemed to have transferred zero, zippo, nada, because the IRS allows me to assume that the investment is paying only 5%. According to IRS math, there is no money left over to accumulate. Ten years of zero is zero. There is no gift. There is no gift tax. The IRS cannot be wrong.

Let’s go back to the Facebook insiders. What interest rate do they have to use? Last time I checked it was around 1.6%. Do you think there is an accumulation possibility here with Facebook stock? Yes, I think so.

I am not making this up. I wish I could have been one of the advisors.

Actually, I wish I could have been one of the insiders.

Something New In Gifting of Family Limited Partnerships

Let’s talk this time about gift taxation.

Let’s say that you have a family-owned company.  You desire to pass this on to your kids and grandkids. There are ways to do this, but the method best for you is annual gifts of $13,000, which is the amount of the gift tax annual exclusion. Both you and your spouse can give away $13,000 per beneficiary, so you are transferring $26,000 at a clip. Enough beneficiaries and this can add up.

You ask: what could go wrong?

What if the IRS challenged the value of the gift? Remember, partnership or LLC units generally do not have the same value as a direct and uninterrupted transfer of the asset(s) in the partnership or LLC.

Why is that? Well, if you are a limited member, you have to obtain the general member’s permission to asset. If you are my daughter and I am the general member, rest assured that permission is not happening for a while.  My daughter may “own” $26,000 (2 annual gifts of $13,000) in the LLC, but is it really worth $26,000?  Remember: you need my permission to get to the $26,000. Would you pay her $26,000 today on the hope and prayer that someday I will distribute $26,000 to you? 

Let’s say that IRS comes in says that the LLC units are not worth $26,000. Instead the units are worth $40,000.  What just happened? What happened is that I have to amend my gift tax return. I am now using my lifetime exemption so as not write a check to the IRS. Had I already used-up my lifetime exemption, I would be writing a check. I would not be happy.

What if I changed the terms of the gift? Instead of saying that my wife and I transferred X number of units, we say we transferred units (or fractions thereof) worth $13,000 to our daughter. If the IRS adjusts the gift value upward, then – as far as I am concerned - I “actually” gifted fewer units. Remember, I gifted $13,000 in value, NOT a set number of units. Brilliant!

Except that the IRS thought it too brilliant. This tax technique is called a “defined value clause,” and the IRS has pursued these cases on multiple grounds, including being against public policy.

One of the first cases was Proctor. There the donors gifted remainder interests using the following clause:

“In the event it should be determined … that any part of the transfer in trust hereunder is subject to gift tax, it is agreed by all parties hereto that in that event the excess property hereby transferred which is decreed by such court to be subject to gift tax, shall automatically be deemed not to be included in the conveyance in trust hereunder and shall remain the sole property of the taxpayer.”        

The Fourth Circuit of Appeals nixed the Proctor clause as being after-the-fact. It was a condition subsequent. The IRS continued its win streak with Ward and with Harwood.

Those cases are easy to understand: you cannot undo what has already been done. Let’s make it more challenging.

What if you are not trying to undo anything?  What if you have two beneficiaries: your family and any excess going to charity? Think about this for a moment. If the IRS revalues the gift, the revaluation would be “excess” and go to the charity. There is no gift tax on transfers to charity. There would be little motivation for the IRS to pursue you. The IRS still did not like this and litigated the matter in Christiansen, McCord and Petter. This time, they were not as successful.

What if you like the result in McCord but it is not your intent to include a charitable beneficiary? Congratulations. You are Dean and Joanne Wandry. The Wandry’s gifted partnership units worth $1,099,000 on January 1, 2004. The actual number of units was not fixed, pending a later valuation. The valuation was completed July 26, 2005. The IRS examined the gift tax returns and issued the tax assessment in February, 2009.

The IRS argued that

·         The descriptions on the gift tax returns sounded like a transfer of units and not dollars

·         The entry the accountant made to the books sounded like a transfer of units and not dollars

·         The attorney’s documents sounded like a transfer of units and not dollars

·         It was against public policy to transfer dollars and not units, and

·         In any event the taxpayers smelled funny.

The Wandry’s took the matter to Tax Court. They won their case this past March, and they are now famous as being the first taxpayers to win against the IRS using a formula clause that doesn’t have a charitable element. Granted, this is not the same as winning the Peyton Manning sweepstakes, but it is something.

My take: I expect to see Wandry clauses as standard boilerplate in FLP transfer documents from this point on.

Thinking on This Week's Senate Surtax

The Senate Democrats have offered yet another tax to pay for yet another $447 billion stimulus package. They now want to impose a 5.6% surtax on income over $1 million per couple.

Let’s add-up the increases that are being discussed or have already been passed into legislation:

·         The expiration of the Bush tax cuts                          39.6%

·         The phase-out of itemized deductions (Pease)        1.19%

·         The phase-out of personal exemptions (PEP)           1.15%

·         The Medicare surtax on investment income            3.8%

·         The Medicare surtax on earned income                    0.9%                   

·         This week’s Senate Democrat proposal                    5.6%

                                                                                              --------------            

                                                                                                                       52.24%                                                                          

I doubt this list is complete as the above is just off the top of my head. 

You get the idea.