Filing A Zero-Income Tax Return

Here’s a question:

Would you file a tax return if you have no income – or minimal income - to report?

I would if there was a refund.

I also lean to filing if one has a history of tax filings.

The former is obvious, unless the incremental cost of filing the return is more than the refund.

The latter is because of my skepticism. I do not want a letter from the IRS stating they have not received a tax return for name-a-year. Granted, the issue should be easily resolved, but I have lost track of how many should-be’s have turned out to not-be.

Another reason is a rerun of Congress’ decision to automatically send advance payments back in 2021 – specifically, the child tax credit.       

You were ahead of the game by having filed a prior year return.

Ruben Varela filed a 1040EZ for 2017. It showed a refund of $1,373.

OK.

Ruben attached four Forms 4852 Substitute for Form W-2.

This form is used when an employer fails to send a W-2, among other situations. It happens and I see one every few years. But four …? That is odd.

The 4852’s that Ruben prepared showed zero wages.

And the $1,373 included Social Security and Medicare taxes., taxes which are not refundable.

Ruben, stop that yesterday. This is common tax protestor nonsense.

Let’s read on. There was third party reporting (think computer matching) for wages of $11,311 and cancellation of indebtedness income of $1,436.

Not surprisingly, the IRS considered it a protest filing and assessed a Section 6702(a) penalty.

§ 6702 Frivolous tax submissions.

(a)  Civil penalty for frivolous tax returns.

A person shall pay a penalty of $5,000 if-

(1)  such person files what purports to be a return of a tax imposed by this title but which-

(A)  does not contain information on which the substantial correctness of the self-assessment may be judged, or

(B)  contains information that on its face indicates that the self-assessment is substantially incorrect, and

(2)  the conduct referred to in paragraph (1) -

(A)  is based on a position which the Secretary has identified as frivolous under subsection (c) , or

(B)  reflects a desire to delay or impede the administration of Federal tax laws. 

That caught Ruben’s attention, and he disputed the penalty. On to Tax Court they went.

How can I owe a penalty if there was NO TAX, argued Ruben.

On first impression, it seems a reasonable argument.

But this is tax. Let’s look at that Code section again. 

              Such person files ….                                                      OK

              What purports to be a tax return …                                OK

      Does not contain information on

   which the substantial correctness …                             ?

 

Let’s talk about this last one. The Tax Court has a history of characterizing “zero” W-2s as both substantially incorrect and not containing sufficient information allowing one to judge the self-assessment of tax.

We have a third “OK.”

Back to Section 6702.

Is there any reference in Section 6702 to whether the return did or did not show tax due?

I am not seeing it.

The Court did not see it either.

They upheld the Section 6702 penalty.

The IRS wanted more, of course. They also wanted the Section 6673 penalty.

§ 6673 Sanctions and costs awarded by court

This penalty can be imposed when somebody clogs the Court in order to impede tax administration. The penalty can be harsh.

How harsh?

Up to $25 grand of fresh-brewed harsh.

The Court noted they had not seen Ruben Varela before nor was it aware of him previously pursuing similar arguments. They declined to impose the Section 6673 penalty, but …

We caution petitioner that a penalty may be imposed in future cases before this Court should he continue to pursue these misguided positions.”

The Court was warning him in the strongest legalese it could muster.

Our case this time was Ruben Varela v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-92.

 

What Is Your Tax Basis When There Are No Records?

 

Since I started practice, there have been repetitive proposals to change the step-up basis rules upon death. With some exceptions, the general rule is that assets at one’s death take fair market value as their tax basis.

EXAMPLE: A decedent purchased his principal residence in 1975 for $56,000. The house is in Brentwood, Tennessee, and upon death the property is worth $1 million. The property’s tax basis is reset from $56 thousand to $1 million. Sell it for $1 million shortly after death and there is no gain or loss.

The common exception are retirement accounts: 401(k)s, 403(b)s, traditional IRAs and so on. These assets do not reset to fair market value (the tax nerds call this the “mark”), as the Code wants distributions from these accounts to be taxed as ordinary income.

There is a downside to the mark, of course. If the asset has gone down in value, then that lower value becomes the new basis.

The proposals I to which I refer would require carryover basis for the asset, meaning that tax basis will be acquisition cost plus improvements with no reference to market value at death.

I get it, I really do.

Why should income tax basis for an asset be marked just because someone died?

To continue that line of argument, why should there be a mark if one did not even have to file an estate tax return, much less pay estate taxes? The lifetime exemption in 2024 is $13.61 million. That is rarified air. So few estate tax returns are being filed that the IRS has been reassigning estate examiners to other functions.

The flip side asks how many times an asset is going to be taxed. To require carryover basis is to extend taxation on someone even beyond their death, which – I admit – seems macabre.

I prefer the mark over carryover basis for a different reason:

I am a practitioner and have been for decades. The argument for carryover basis may sound reasonable in the insulated confines of academe or expense account restaurants in corridors of power, but one should make a reality check with practitioners who have to work with these rules.

I expect that many if not most practitioners have encountered assets that are nearly impossible to cost or – if possible – possible only with extraordinary effort.

We had an example during busy season. A client and his siblings sold undeveloped land inherited from their grandfather and great aunt. The property had been owned separately, then as tenants in common, had survived two deaths and eventually found its way into a trust. The trust had terminated, and the siblings had formed a partnership in its place. One of the siblings was convinced that the basis for the land was incorrect. It was possible, as we had assumed the tax work from another accountant. We had not previously questioned the basis for the land. No one had.   

It took weeks and multiple people investigating and researching the provenance of the land. Even so, we were fortunate to research only back to the dates of the two deaths, as those would be the trigger dates for any potential mark.   

This is but one asset. One taxpayer. One practitioner. Who knows how many times the story repeats?

There is also a dark side to establishing tax basis that should be said out loud.

Let’s look at the Youngquist case.

Dean Youngquist (DY) did not file a tax return for 1996. He in fact had not filed a tax return since the late 1980s, which is a story for another day.

DY started day trading in 1996. He opened an account with Protrade. He closed that account in December 1996 and opened an account with Datek, another brokerage.

Do you remember the 1099-Bs that brokerages send you and the IRS? The Protrade and Datek 1099-Bs totaled $2,052,688 in sales proceeds.

COMMENT: I expect to see net trading losses, as net gains from day trading are uncommon.

The IRS send DY a tax assessment of $791,200, with another $796,726 in penalties and interest.

DY had been space-tripping, I guess. He did not file a tax return. He did not remember receiving notice(s) from the IRS. He had no idea that liens were filed on his property. He was shocked to learn that the IRS wanted to sell stuff to collect his taxes.

COMMENT: DY needs to tighten his game.

DY asked how the IRS got to the $791 grand in tax, much less the penalties and interest.

Easy, said the IRS. Since you did not provide records, we used zero (-0-) as your basis in the trades.

Folks, we all know there is zero chance that DY had no cost in his trades. The world does not work that way. How then did the IRS assert its position with a straight face?

Here is the Court:

The fact that basis may be difficult to establish does not relieve a taxpayer from his burden.”

DY did not even file a tax return, so it appears he put zero effort into discharging his burden.

If the taxpayer fails to satisfy the burden, the basis is deemed to be zero.”

Harsh, but that is the Coloman decision and extant tax law.

What did DY do next?

Believe it or not, he found – way, way after the fact – records for his Datek account.

The United States will abate the assessments by the portion of the assessments, penalties, and interest that were based upon the $601,612.50 in stock sales through Datek in 1996.”

Datek, BTW, was not his major trading account. Protrade was.

… there is no evidence documenting Youngquist’s actual stock transactions in the Protrade account. There are no statements from Protrade. There are no letters or emails from Protrade. Youngquist did not keep any notes about the stocks he purchased and sold, and he is unable to testify from memory about the specific stocks he bought and sold.”

DY had waited too long. Protrade was out of business.

DY had an idea:

·      He started his Protrade account with $73,000.

·      He closed his account with $67,333.

·      There was an aggregate loss of $5,677.

Seems reasonable.

Here is the Court:

First, I can find no authority to support his aggregate theory of proving basis in stock.”

This is technically correct, as each sale is its own event. Still, I would urge the Court to pull back the camera and use common sense. In legal-speak, we would call this an equity argument.

His only evidence is his own uncorroborated testimony. Youngquist’s bank account records do not reveal the November 5, 1996 withdrawal went to Protrade. There is no wire transfer record. There is no cancelled check evidencing payment to Protrade. Youngquist relies solely on his own testimony to suggest these facts.”

Personally, I believe that DY lost money overall in his Protrade account, but that is not the issue. The issue is that he needed to retain (some) records and file a return, responsibilities which he ignored. He then wanted the Court to do his work for him, and the Court was having none of that.

A taxpayer’s self-serving declaration is generally not a sufficient substitute for records.”

DY won on Datek but lost on Protrade. This was going to be expensive.

Back to the carryover basis proposal.

DY could not find records in 2013 going back to 1996. Granted, that is a long time, but that is nothing compared to requiring records from other people, possibly from other states and likely from decades earlier.  There should be a concession in tax administration that ordinary people pursuing ordinary goals are not going to maintain (and retain) records to the standards of the National Archive, at least not in overwhelming numbers. Combine that with a possible Youngquist body slam to zero, and the carryover basis proposal strikes as economically inefficient, financially brutish, possibly condescending, and an administrative nightmare. Why are we discussing a tax policy that cannot survive exposure to the real world?

Our case this time was U.S. v Youngquist, 3:11-cv-06113-PK, District Oregon.

Tax Return That Surprised An Accountant

Let’s do something a little different this time.

I want you to see numbers the way a tax CPA does.

Let’s say that you are semi-retired and you bring me your following tax information:

                    W-2                                         24,000

                    Interest income                            600

                    Qualified dividend income      40,000

                    Long-term capital gains          10,000

                    IRA                                         24,000

Looks to me like you have income of $98,600.

How about deductions?

                    Real estate taxes                    10,000

                    Mortgage interest                      5,000

                    Donations                                26,000

I am seeing $41,000, not including your exemptions.

You did some quick calculations and figure that your federal taxes will be about $6,500. You want to do some tax planning anyway, so you set up an appointment. What can you do to reduce your tax? 

What do I see here?

I’ll give you a hint.

Long-term capital gains have a neat tax trick: the capital gains tax rate is 0% as long as your ordinary income tax rate is 15% or lower. This does not mean that you cannot have a tax, mind you. To the extent that you have taxable income in excess of those capital gains, you will have tax.

Let’s walk though this word salad.

Income $98,600 – deductions $41,000 – exemptions $8,100 = $49,500 taxable income.

You have capital gains of $10,000.

Question: will you have to pay tax on the difference – the $39,500?

Answer: qualified dividends also have a neat tax trick: for this purpose, they are taxed similarly to long-term capital gains.

NOTE: Think of qualified dividends as dividends from a U.S. company or a foreign company that trades on an U.S. exchange and you are on the right path.

You have capital gains and qualified dividends totaling $50,000.

Your taxable income is $49,500.

All of your taxable income is qualified dividends and capital gains, and you never left the 15% tax bracket.

What is your tax?

Zero.

How is that for tax planning, huh?

From a tax perspective, you hit a home run.

Let me change two of the numbers so we can better understand this qualified dividend/capital gain/taxable income/15% tax bracket thing.

                    W-2                                         36,000

                    Qualified dividends                 28,000

As you probably can guess, I left your taxable income untouched at $49,500, but I changed its composition.

You now have capital gains and qualified dividends of $38,000. Your taxable income is $49,500, meaning that you have “other” income in there. You are going to have to pay tax on that “other” income, as it does not have that qualified dividend/capital gain trick.

The tax will be $1,153.

You still did great. It is just that no tax beats some tax any day of the week.

It is something to consider when you think about retirement planning. We are used to thinking about 401(k)s, deductible IRAs, Roth IRAs, social security and so on, but let’s not leave out qualified dividends and capital gains. Granted, capital gains are unpredictable and not a good fit for reliable income, but dividend-paying stocks might work for you. When was the last time Proctor & Gamble missed a dividend payment, for example?

OK, I admit: if you leave the 15% tax bracket the above technique fizzles. That however would take approximately $76,000 taxable income for marrieds filing jointly. Congrats if that is you.

BTW I saw scenario one during tax season (I tweaked the numbers somewhat for discussion, of course). The accountant was perplexed and asked me to look at the return with him. The zero tax threw him.

Now he knows the dividend/capital gain thing, and so do you.