Section 1202 Stock And A House Tax Proposal

I am not a fan of fickleness and caprice in the tax law.

I am seeing a tax proposal in the House Ways and Means Committee that represents one.

It has been several years since we spoke about qualified small business stock (QSBS). Tax practice is acronym rich, and one of the reasons is to shortcut who qualifies – and does not qualify – for a certain tax provision. Section 1202 defines QSBS as stock:

·      issued by a C corporation,

·      with less than $50 million in assets at time of stock issuance,

·      engaged in an active trade or business,

·      acquired at original issuance by an eligible shareholder in exchange for either cash or services provided, and

·      held for at least five years.

The purpose of this provision is to encourage – supposedly – business start-ups.

How?

A portion of the gain is not taxed when one sells the stock.

This provision has been out there for approximately 30 years, and the portion not taxed has changed over time. Early on, one excluded 50% (up to a point); it then became 75% and is now 100% (again, up to a point).

What is that point?

The amount of gain that can be excluded is the greater of:

·      $10 million, or

·      10 times the taxpayer’s basis in the stock disposed

Sweet.

Does that mean I sell my tax practice for megabucks, all the while excluding $10 million of gain?

Well, no. Accounting practices do not qualify for Section 1202. Not to feel singled- out, law and medical practices do not qualify either.

I have seen very few Section 1202 transactions over the years. I believe there are two primary reasons for this:

                 

(a)  I came into the profession near the time of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which single-handedly tilted choice-of-entity for entrepreneurial companies from C to S corporations. Without going into details, the issue with a C corporation is getting money out without paying double tax. It is not an issue if one is talking about paying salary or rent, as one side deducts and the other side reports income. It is however an issue when the business is sold. The S corporation allows one to mitigate (or altogether avoid) the double tax in this situation. Overnight the S corporation became the entity of choice for entrepreneurial and closely-held companies. There has been some change in recent years as LLCs have gained popularity, but the C corporation continues to be out-of-favor for non-Wall Street companies. 

 

(b)  The sale of entrepreneurial and closely-held companies is rarely done as a stock purchase, a requirement for Section 1202 stock. These companies sell their assets, not their stock. Stock acquisitions are more a Wall Street phenomenon.

So, who benefits from Section 1202?

A company that would be acquired via a stock purchase. Someone like … a tech start-up, for example. How sweet it would have been to be an early investor in Uber or Ring, for example. And remember: the $10 million cap is per investor. Take hundreds of qualifying investors and you can multiply that $10 million by hundreds.

You can see the loss to the Treasury.

Is it worth it?

There has been criticism that perhaps the real-world beneficiaries of Section 1202 are not what was intended many years ago when this provision entered the tax Code.

I get it.

So what is the House Ways and Means Committee proposing concerning Section 1202?

They propose to cut the exclusion to 50% from 100% for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) over $400 grand and for sales after September 13, 2021.

Set aside the $400 grand AGI. That sale might be the only time in life that someone ever got close to or exceeded $400 grand of income.

The issue is sales after September 13, 2021.

It takes at least five years to even qualify for Section 1202. This means that the tax planning for a 2021 sale was done on or before 2016, and now the House wants to retroactively nullify tax law that people relied upon years ago.

Nonsense like this is damaging to normal business. I have made a career representing entrepreneurs and their closely-held businesses. I have been there – first person singular - where business decisions have been modified or scrapped because of tax disincentives. Taxing someone to death clearly qualifies as a business disincentive. So does retroactively changing the rules on a decision that takes years to play out. Mind you – I say that not as a fan of Section 1202.

To me it would make more sense to change the rules only for stock issued after a certain date – say September 13, 2021 – and not for sales after that date. One at least would be forewarned.   

Should bad-faith tax proposals like this concern you?

Well, yes. If our current kakistocracy can do this, what keeps them from retroactively revoking the current tax benefits of your Roth IRA?  How would you feel if you have been following the rules for 20 years, contributing to your Roth, paying taxes currently, all with the understanding that future withdrawals would be tax-free, and meanwhile a future Congress decides to revoke that rule - retroactively?

I can tell you how I would feel.

Receiving An IRS Lock-In Letter

 

A client recently picked up his personal tax return. He asked to see me.

There was tax due with the return. I thought he had adjusted his withholding to increase his take-home pay, as he had spoken to me of financial stress. I am not a fan of doing this, as tax is due whether one withholds or not.   

He could not have tax due with his return, he explained, as he had received a lock-in letter from the IRS.

There is something I do not often see.

There are two versions of the lock-in letter: one sent to the employee and another to the employer. The IRS is telling both that it wants additional withholding from each paycheck, commonly meaning single withholding with no dependents.

The lock-in surprised me, as my client is not one to game the system. What he did was fall behind on his taxes due to a failed business. There are liens – IRS and private - that he is working through.

The IRS sends the employee a letter informing him/her that his/her withholdings are too low. The IRS wants the employee to self-adjust by increasing their withholding.

If that fails, the IRS sends the employer a letter. An employer has 60 days from the date of the letter to unilaterally adjust the employee’s withholdings.

The employee can quit, but the lock is good for 12 months. The employee will have to go somewhere else for a year before returning if he/she wishes to avoid the lock.

The 60 days has two purposes:

(1)  To allow the employer time to make the changes, and 

(2)  To prompt the employee to contact the IRS. If so – and if the employee can persuade the IRS – the IRS may modify the lock.

If the employee keeps his/her nose clean, he/she can request the IRS remove the lock-in. Figure that it will take about three years of tax returns, however, so it is best to avoid the lock altogether.

The employer is extremely unlikely to buck the IRS, as the employer might then draw surrogate liability. One might be a valued employee, but one is not that valued. 

Let’s look at a case.

Charles G worked for Volvo Trucks North America (VTNA). He submitted a W-4 to VTNA claiming that he was exempt from income tax withholding. He also requested VTNA to stop withholding social security taxes.

VTNA was surprisingly tolerant. It spotted Charles a 99-dependent W-4 (affecting income tax withholding), although it could not do anything about the social security.

Charles went a couple of years or so before the IRS contacted him. He blew it off, so the IRS sent VTNA a lock-in letter.

Charles went ballistic.

Charles accused the IRS and VTNA of “acting in violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act (RICO).”

Wow. I wonder how it went come employee review time.

The Court of course dismissed Charles’ claim against VTNA. In general, an employer must follow an employee’s request concerning withholding. If the employee asserts that he/she is exempt from withholding, then the employer must comply with such request unless certain situations occur. A lock-in letter is one of those situations.

It sounds rather self-evident, truthfully.

It also sounds like Charles was a bit of a tax protestor. A word of advice: don’t go there with Charles. Your chances of success are between zero and none, and the list of dead bodies on that hill stretches interminably. Several years ago, we represented a business having an officer the IRS considered a protestor. I did not agree with the IRS on this, but I admit that he was getting close to the line.  The audit was … unpleasant. There was no question that school was in session, and the IRS was looking to teach a lesson.

Our case this time was Giles v Volvo Trucks of North America, 551 F. Supp 2^nd 359.

Becoming Personally Liable For An Estate’s Taxes

 

I had lunch with a friend recently. He is executor for an estate and was telling me about some … questionable third-party behavior and document discoveries. I left the conversation underwhelmed with his attorney and recommending a replacement as soon as possible. There are two other beneficiaries to this estate, and he has a fiduciary responsibility as executor.

Granted, all are family and get along. The risk - it seems to me - is minimal.

It is not always that way. I have a client whose family was ripped apart by an inheritance. I shake my head, as there was not enough money there (methinks) to spat over, much less exact lifelong grudges. However, he was executor and so-and-so received such-and-such back when Carter first started making liver pills and he should have offset someone for … oh, who knows.

Being executor can be a thankless job.

It can also get one into trouble.

Let’s take a look at the Lee estate.

Kwang Lee died testate in September, 2001.

         COMMENT: Testate means someone died with a will.

A municipal court judge was named executor.

The judge filed the estate return in May, 2003.

COMMENT: The return was late, but there was some complexity as both spouses died within six months. There was language in the will about a-spouse-is-considered-to-survive-if that created some confusion.

COMMENT: It doesn’t matter. You know the IRS is coming in with penalties.

The IRS audited the return.

 In April 2006 the IRS issued a Notice of Deficiency for over $1,000,000. 

COMMENT: The IRS also wanted a penalty over $255 grand for late filing.

The executor filed with the Tax Court.

 In February, 2007 the executor distributed $640,000 to the beneficiaries.

COMMENT: Pause on what happened here. The IRS wanted additional tax and penalties. The executor was contesting this in Tax Court. The issue was live when the executor distributed the money.

Is there a risk?

You bet.

What if the estate lost its case and did not have enough money left to pay the tax and penalties?

The Tax Court gave the executor a partial win: the estate owed closer to a half million dollars than a million. The Court also waived the penalties.

The estate did not have a half million dollars. It did have $182,941.

The estate submitted an offer in compromise to the IRS for $182,941.

The IRS looked at the offer and said: are you kidding me? What about that $640,000 you distributed before its time?

The IRS pointed out this bad boy:

31 U.S. Code § 3713.Priority of Government claims

(a)

(1) A claim of the United States Government shall be paid first when—

(A) a person indebted to the Government is insolvent and—

(i) the debtor without enough property to pay all debts makes a voluntary assignment of property;

(ii) property of the debtor, if absent, is attached; or

(iii) an act of bankruptcy is committed; or

(B) the estate of a deceased debtor, in the custody of the executor or administrator, is not enough to pay all debts of the debtor.

(2) This subsection does not apply to a case under title 11.

(b) A representative of a person or an estate (except a trustee acting under title 11) paying any part of a debt of the person or estate before paying a claim of the Government is liable to the extent of the payment for unpaid claims of the Government. 

The effect of Section 3713 is to make the executor personally liable for a debt to the U.S. when: 

o  The estate was rendered insolvent by a distribution, and

o  The executor had knowledge or notice of the government’s claim at the time of the distribution.

The judge/executor did the only thing he could do: he challenged the charge that he had actual knowledge of a deficiency when he distributed the $640,000.

The executor was hosed. I am not sure what more of a wake-up-call the executor needed than an IRS Notice of Deficiency. For goodness’ sake, he filed a petition with the Tax Court in response.

Maybe he thought that he would win in Tax Court.

He did, by the way, but partially. The tax was cut in half, and the penalties were waived.

Notice that the estate would not have had enough money had it lost the case in full. The tax would have been over a million, with additional penalties of a quarter million. Under the best of circumstances, the estate would have had cash of approximately $822 thousand and unable to pay in full.

In that case I doubt Section 3713 would have applied. The estate would have conserved its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

But the estate did not conserve its cash upon receiving a Notice of Deficiency.

The executor became personally liable.

Mind you, this may work out. Perhaps the beneficiaries return the cash; perhaps there is a claim under a performance bond.

Still, why would an executor – especially a skilled attorney and municipal judge – go there?

Our case this time was Estate of Lee v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-92.

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.

 

"I Never Heard Of The Alternative Minimum Tax"

 

I am looking at a case that involves the alternative minimum tax.

While it still exists, much of the steam has thankfully been taken out of the AMT. It started off as Congressional reaction to a handful of ultrawealthy families paying little to no income taxes decades ago. Congress’s response was to require a second tax calculation, disallowing certain things – such as exemptions for your dependents.

Yes, you read that correctly, you large-family tax scofflaw.

Now, it wouldn’t be so bad if this thing had been scaled to only reach the wealthy and ultrawealthy, but that is not what Congress did. Congress instead gave you a spot, and then you were on your own. For 2017 that spot was approximately $84 grand in income for marrieds filing jointly.

I used to see the AMT as often as a Gibson’s employee sees donuts.

Thankfully the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 did a couple of things to defang the AMT:

(1) It increased the exemption (that is, the spot) for everyone. Marrieds now have an exemption of approximately $115,000, for example.

(2)  More importantly, it adjusted a previous rule that phased-out the exemption as one’s income increased. For example, marrieds in 2017 would start phasing-out when their income reached approximately $160,000. Now it is over $1 million, which makes a lot more sense it if was truly targeted at the wealthy.

Why the absurdly low previous income thresholds for the AMT, especially since it was supposed to target the “rich?” Think of it as Congressional addiction to paper crack – the paper being your dollar bills.

The tax law is a little saner until 2026, when the TCJA goes “poof.” Much prior tax law will then resurrect – including the previous version AMT.

Robert Colton and Alina Mazwin (R&A) filed a joint return for 2016.

The IRS did its computer matching and sent them a notice. There was $125,000 reported by JP Morgan Chase Bank. The IRS wanted taxes on it.

R&A explained to the IRS that the $125,000 was a legal settlement, and that half of it went to Mr Colton’s ex-spouse.

The IRS said OK, but we want taxes on the $62,500.

Let’s take an aside here. You may have heard that lawsuit settlements are not taxable. That is only partially true. The lawsuit has to involve physical injury (think a car crash, for example) to be tax-free.

It appears that Mr Colton’s settlement was of the non-car crash variety, meaning that it was taxable.

R&A then amended their 2016 return, picking up the $62,500 but also claiming a miscellaneous itemized deduction of $80,075 for attorney fees.

Hah! They might even get a tax refund out of this, right? Take that, IRS.

Except …

Guess what is not deductible for the AMT.

Yep, that miscellaneous itemized deduction.

So – for AMT purposes – their income went up by the $62,500 but there was no deduction for the related legal fee.

How much income did R&A have before the IRS contacted them?

About $40 grand.

Yep, the AMT had been bent so far beyond recognition that it trapped someone amending a return to show perhaps $100 grand in income.

Folks, that income level does not go you invited to the cool parties on Martha’s Vineyard.

Let me share a line from the case:

Petitioners stated in their petition that ‘[they] never heard of [the] alternative minimum tax.”

I get it. I consider it unconscionable that an average person has to hire someone like me to prepare their taxes.  

Our case this time for the home gamers was Colton and Mazwin v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-44.

Wiping Out An Inherited IRA

I came across an unfortunate tax situation this week.

It has to do with IRAs and trusts.

More specifically, naming a trust as a beneficiary of an IRA.

This carried a bit more punch before the tax law change of the SECURE Act, effective for 2020. Prior to the change, best planning for an inherited IRA frequently included a much younger beneficiary. This would reset the required distribution table, with the result that the monies could stay in the IRA for decades longer than if the original owner had lived. This was referred to as the “stretch” IRA. The SECURE Act changed that result for most beneficiaries, and now IRAs have to distribute – in general – over no longer than 10 years. 

Trusts created a problem for stretch IRAs, as trusts do not have an age or life expectancy like people do. This led to something called the “look-through” or “conduit” trust, allowing one to look-through the trust to its beneficiary in arriving at an age and life expectancy to make the stretch work.

The steam has gone out of the conduit trust.

One might still want to use a trust as an IRA beneficiary, though. Why? Here is an example:

The individual beneficiary has special needs. There may be income and/or asset restrictions in order to obtain government benefits.

What is the point, you ask? Doesn’t the IRA have to distribute to the individual over no more than 10 years?

Well … not quite. The IRA has to distribute to the trust (which is the IRA beneficiary) over no more than 10 years. The trust, in turn, does not have to distribute anything to its individual beneficiary.

This is referred to as an accumulation trust. Yes, it gets expensive because the trust tax rates are unreasonably compressed. Still, the nontax objectives may well outweigh the taxes involved in accumulating.

There is something about an inherited IRA that can go wrong, however. Do you remember something called a “60-day rollover?” This is when you receive a check from your IRA and put the money back within 60 days. I am not a fan, and I can think of very few cases where I would use or recommend it.

Why?

Because of Murphy’s Law, what I do and have done for over 35 years.

You know who can do a 60-day rollover?

Only a surviving spouse can use a 60-day rollover on an inherited IRA.  

You know who cannot do a 60-day rollover on an inherited IRA?

Anyone other than a surviving spouse.

It is pretty clear-cut.  

I am looking at someone who did not get the memo.

Here are the highlights:

·      Husband died.

·      The wife rolled the IRA into her own name (this is a special rule only for surviving spouses).

·      The wife died.

·      A trust for the kids inherited the IRA.

No harm, no foul so far.

·      The kids wanted to trade stocks within the IRA.

So it begins.

·      The IRA custodian told the kids that they would have to transfer the money someplace else if they wanted to trade.

No prob. The kids should have the IRA custodian transfer the money directly to the custodian of a new IRA that will let them trade to their heart’s content.

·      The kids had the IRA custodian transfer the money to a non-IRA account owned by the trust.

And so it ends.

The kids were hosed. They tried a Hail Mary by filing a private letter request with the IRS, asking for permission to put the money back in the IRA. The IRS looked at the tax law for a split second … and said “No.”

The IRS was right.

And, as usual, I wonder what happened with calling the tax advisor before moving around not-insignificant amounts of money.  

One can point out that taxes would have been payable as the kids withdrew money, and an inherited IRA has to distribute. If mom died in 2020 or later, the IRA would have to be distributed over no more than 10 years anyway.

Still, 10 years is 10 years. If nothing else, it would have given the kids the opportunity to avoid bunching all IRA income into one taxable year.

Not to mention paying for a private letter ruling, which is not cheap.

I hope they enjoy their stock trading.

The cite for the home gamers is PLR 202125007.

Taxation of Olympic Winnings

The summer Olympics are going on in Tokyo. I have watched little of the competitions. As I have gotten older, I watch less and less television, Olympics included. My heaviest TV consumption is just around the corner, when the NFL season begins. I am an unabashed NFL junkie.

Let’s discuss the taxation of Olympic awards, including medals.

In general, the law taxes all awards and prizes. There are exceptions, of course, but for years there was no exception for Olympic medals and prize money.

This means that if someone won a gold medal, for example, Uncle Sam was standing on the podium with the athlete waiting for his cut.

Can you imagine having to pay tax on a gold medal?

Although a gold medal is not pure gold. The last pure gold medal was awarded in 1912, and today’s gold medals are over 90% silver. Gold medals at the 2012 London Olympics were less than 2% gold, for example.

Then there is the issue that a medal – once awarded – can be worth more than the weight of the metals that went into its manufacture. Boxing fans may remember the boxer Wladimir Klitschko from the 1996 Atlanta games. He sold his gold medal in 2012 for $1 million, donating the proceeds to charity.  

There may also be cash winnings. The U.S. Olympic and Paralympic Committee (USOPC) will pay a winning athlete approximately $37,000 per gold medal. While not bad, it pales in comparison to some other countries. Singapore will pay over $730 thousand for a gold medal, by comparison.

The real money of course is in endorsements. Usain Bolt receives $4 million per year from Puma as a brand ambassador, even after retirement. Not bad work if you can get it.

Back to tax. The general rule is that all prizes and awards are taxable, unless the Code allows an exception.

In 2016 lawmakers decided that it was a bad look to assess tax on Olympic winners. Two senators – John Thune, a Republican from South Dakota and Chuck Schumer, a Democrat from New York – submitted a bill to change this situation. Here is a joint statement, something we are unlikely to see again in the near to intermediate political future:

It’s no secret that athletes don’t become Olympians overnight. For many of the competitors who’ve been fortunate enough to earn a spot on an Olympic or Paralympic podium, it’s a lifetime’s worth of work that has come with years of blood, sweat and tears.

It’s a patriotic endeavor that often has a large price tag affiliated with it, too.

Under the current tax code, medals and any associated prize stipend are considered taxable income.

Tax policy is too often complicated and partisan, which makes the bill we introduced this year unique. Our bill passed the Senate without a dissenting vote, and is about as simple as they come. The bill, which awaits action in the House, would bar the IRS from leveeing a victory tax on Olympic and Paralympic medalists.

Preventing the IRS from taxing medals and modest cash incentive prizes sends the right message to present and future members of Team USA: Rather than viewing Olympic success as another chance to pay Uncle Sam, it’s a special opportunity to celebrate American patriotism and the Olympic tradition.

The tax on Olympic winnings was called the “victory tax,” and President Obama signed the United States Appreciation for Olympians and Paralympians Act into effect on October 7, 2016. There was an important issue, however: how were professionals (think Kevin Durant, for example) to be taxed? These athletes were already making eye-watering sums of money, and to exclude their winnings seemed … an overreach … if one was truly trying to reward the amateur athlete.

Here is the Code section:

           Code § 74 - Prizes and awards

              (d) Exception for Olympic and Paralympic medals and prizes

(1) In general

Gross income shall not include the value of any medal awarded in, or any prize money received from the United States Olympic Committee on account of, competition in the Olympic Games or Paralympic Games.

(2) Limitation based on adjusted gross income

(A) In general

Paragraph (1) shall not apply to any taxpayer for any taxable year if the adjusted gross income (determined without regard to this subsection) of such taxpayer for such taxable year exceeds $1,000,000 (half of such amount in the case of a married individual filing a separate return).

How therefore is an Olympic winner taxed?

·      There is no tax on the medal itself.

·      Prize money is not taxed unless the athlete has substantial other income, with substantial meaning over $1 million (half that if married filing separately).

·      Endorsement income is taxable as normal.

Penalties, Boyle and “Reductio Ad Absurdum.”

 

In logic there is an argument referred to as “reductio ad absurdum.” Its classic presentation is to pursue an assertion or position until it – despite one progressing logically – results in an absurd conclusion. An example would be the argument that the more sleep one gets, the healthier one is. It does not take long to get to the conclusion that someone who sleeps 24 hours a day – in a coma, perhaps – is in peak physical condition.

I am looking at a tax case that fits this description.

What sets it up is our old nemesis – the Boyle decision. Boyle hired an attorney to take care of an estate tax return. The attorney unfortunately filed the return a few months late, and the IRS came with penalties a-flying. Boyle requested penalty abatement for reasonable cause. The Court asked for the grounds constituting reasonable cause. Boyle responded:

                  I hired an ATTORNEY.”

Personally, I agree with Boyle.

The Court however did not. The Court subdivided tax practice in a Camusian manner by holding that:

·      Tax advice can constitute reasonable cause, as the advice can be wrong;

·      Relying on someone to file an extension or return for you cannot constitute reasonable cause, as even a monkey or U.S. Representative could google and find out when the filing is due.

 Here is an exercise for the tax nerd.

(1)  Go to the internet.

(2)  Tell me when a regular vanilla C corporation tax return is due.

(3)  Change the corporate year-end to June 30.

a.    When is that return due?

Yes, the due dates are different. I know because of what I do. Would you have gone to step (3) if I had not pushed you?

Jeffery Lindsay was in prison from 2013 to 2015. He gave his attorney a power of attorney over everything – bank accounts, filing taxes and so on. Lindsay requested the attorney to file and pay his taxes. The attorney assured him he was taking care of it.

He was taking care of Lindsay, all right. He was busy embezzling hundreds of thousands of dollars is what he was doing. Lindsay got wind, sued and won over $700 grand in actual damages and $1 million in punitive damages.

The IRS came in. Why? Because the last thing that the attorney cared about was filing Lindsay’s taxes, paying estimates, any of that. It turns out that Lindsay had filed nothing for years. Lindsay of course owed back taxes. He owed interest on the tax, as he did not pay on time. What stung is that the IRS wanted over $425 grand in penalties.

He did what you or I would do: request that the penalties be abated.

The Court wanted to know the grounds constituting reasonable cause.

Are you kidding me?

Lindsay pointed out the obvious:

         I was in PRISON.”

Here is the Court:

One does not have to be a tax expert to know that tax returns have fixed filing dates and that taxes must be paid when they are due.”

The Court agreed with the IRS and denied reasonable cause.

Lindsay was out hundreds of thousand of dollars in penalties.

I consider the decision the logical conclusion of Boyle. I also think it is a bad decision, and it encapsulates, highlights and magnifies the absurdity of Boyle using the logic of “reductio ad absurdum.”

Our case this time was Lindsay v United States, USDC No 4:19-CV-65.