Oh Henry!

It is a classic tax case.

Let’s travel back to the 1950s.

Let us introduce Robert Lee Henry, both an attorney and a CPA.  He was a tax expert, but he did not restrict his practice solely to tax.

He was also an accomplished competitive horse rider. After he returned from military service, the Army discontinued its horse show team. In response, he organized the United States horse show civilian team.

He met the wealthy and influential, benefiting his practice considerably.

Then he had to give up riding. Heart issues, I believe.

But he was quite interested in continuing to meet the to-do’s and well-connected.

He bought a boat.

He traded it in for a bigger boat.

He bought a flag for the boat. It was red, white and blue and had the numbers “1040.”

People would ask. He would present his background as a tax expert. He was meeting and greeting.

His doctor told him to relax and take time off. Robert Lee called his son, and together they took the boat from New York to Florida. They then decided to spend the winter, as they were already there.

Robert Lee deducted 100% of the boat expenses.

QUESTION: Can Robert Lee deduct the expenses?

NERDY DETAIL: The tax law changed after this case was decided, so the decision today would be easier than it was back in the 1950s. Still, could he deduct the boat expenses in the 1950s?

The key issue was whether the boat expenses were “ordinary and necessary.” That standard is fundamental to tax law and has been around since the beginning. Just because a business activity pays for something does not mean that it is deductible. It has to strain through the “ordinary and necessary” colander.

In truth, this is not a difficult standard in most cases. It can however catch one in an oddball or perhaps (overly) aggressive situation.

Robert Lee was an accomplished rider, and he had developed a book of business because of his equestrian accomplishments. He monetized his equestrian contacts. He now saw an opportunity to meet the same crowd of folk by means of a boat.

Problem: Robert Lee did not use the boat to entertain or transport existing clients or prospective contacts.

And there is the hook. Had he used the boat to entertain, he could more easily show an immediate and proximate relationship between the boat, its expenses and his legal and accounting practice.

He instead had to argue that the boat was a promotional scheme, akin to advertising. It was not as concrete as saying that he schmoozed rich people in the Atlantic on his boat.

He had to run the “ordinary and necessary” gauntlet.

Let’s start.

He continued to have a sizeable equestrian clientele after he left competitive riding.

Good.

He was however unable to provide the Court a single example of a client who came to him because of the boat, at least until years later. Even then, there still wasn’t much in the way of fees.

Bad.

So what, argued Robert Lee. How is this different from buying a full-page ad in an upscale magazine?

Quite a bit, said the Court. You gave up riding for health reasons. There is no question that you derived tremendous personal enjoyment from riding. You have now substituted boating for riding. Enjoyment does not mean that there is no business deduction, but it does mean that the Court may look with a more skeptical eye. It would have been an easier decision for us if you had bought a full-page ad. There is no personal joy in advertising.

As a professional, I have to develop and cultivate many contacts – business, social, personal, political – retorted Robert Lee. One never knows who one will meet, and it takes money to meet money. That is my business reason.

Could not agree with you more, replied the Court. Problem is, that does not make every expenditure deductible. What you are doing is not ordinary. Let’s be frank, Robert Lee, the average attorney/CPA does not keep a yacht.

They would if they could, muttered Robert Lee.

Even if we agreed the expenses were “ordinary,” continued the Court, we have to address whether they are “necessary.” This test is heightened when expenses may have been incurred primarily for personal reasons. You did sail from New York to Florida, by the way. With your son. And you deducted 100% of it.

I am meeting rich people, countered Robert Lee.

Perhaps, answered the Court, but there must be a proximate relationship between the expense and the activity. What you are talking about is remote and incidental. It is difficult to clear the “necessary” hurdle with your “someday I’ll” argument.

Robert Lee shot back: my point should be self-evident to any professional person.

COMMENT: Folks, do not say this when you are trying to persuade a Court.

The Court decided that Robert Lee could not prove either “ordinary” or “necessary.”

The conclusion that the expenditures here involved were primarily related to petitioner’s pleasure and only incidentally related to his business seems inescapable.”

The Court denied his boat deductions.

Our case this time for the home-gamers and riders was Henry v Commissioner.

Issuing 1099s As Retaliation

I continue to be surprised when people use IRS forms as retaliation.

The form of choice tends to be a 1099. The intent – of course – is to provoke an IRS audit.

There was an incessant legal battle several years back at a Cincinnati CPA firm that detonated. I happen to know the parties involved, and I was interested in the use of 1099s as weapons of war. The senior partner in the imbroglio however was not amused with my interest, seemed surprised that so much of the combat was available to one who could search legal records, and told me where to take a long walk. Quite the charmer.

I am reading a case involving doctors in Illinois. There was an anesthesiologist (Nicholas Angelopoulos - “Nick”) who went into business with an orthopedist (Hall).  Hall owned a company (Keystone) which employed Nick and two other doctors.

There was a cost-sharing arrangement among the doctors, which is common enough but which seemed to change without much explanation.

There was question whether Nick and the other two doctors were ever owners of Keystone (an S corporation). There were e-mails, draft shareholder agreements and meeting agendas, and the doctors were charged for equipment purchased by the practice.  Dr Hall, however, maintained that he was the only shareholder.

OK.

There was an LLC called WACHN, comprised of our four doctors plus another and which purchased medical condominiums. Each of the doctors kicked-in $110,000 and the LLC borrowed the rest, although the doctors had to personally guarantee the debt. Nick said that he never signed the operating agreement and that his signature was forged by use of a signature stamp.

Odd.

Each of the four doctors was required to contribute $100,000 towards a “cash reserve” in Keystone’s bank account. Hall argued that it was necessary to avoid paying checking fees, and that – eventually – there would be more money to distribute to everyone. Nick thought that he was paying for his ownership in Keystone.

COMMENT: Folks, if your bank requires hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid fees, you really need to consider another bank.

There were questions about how the numbers were calculated and allocated among the doctors in Keystone, but Hall assured the doctors that the practice manager (Hall’s brother in law, by the way) had assured him everything was in order.

I feel better.

In 2007 two of the doctors left.

Later in 2007, Nick told Hall that he too was leaving.

In March, 2008 Hall gave Nick a hand-written sheet stating that Nick owed $151,769. Hall, being a good sport, said that he would offset the $110,000 that Nick had put into WACHN, but Nick had to transfer his interest to Hall. Hall would then – back to that good sport thing – “forgive” the remaining $40,769. Hall did not address removing Nick as a guarantor for WACHN’s debt, though.

Nick told Hall where to go.

Keystone issued Nick a 1099 for $159,577.

Hall said that Nick still owed $100,000 toward the Keystone cash reserves and $28,000 towards the WACHN buy-in. There was also a $38,010 bonus that Hall was paying Nick on the way out, being a good sport and all. Nick responded that he had paid everything he was supposed to pay, and – by the way – what bonus?

Sure enough, in 2011 the IRS swooped in on Nick.

Mission accomplished.

Turns out the $38,010 bonus was right. That however left a bogus $121,567 on the 1099.

Let’s fast forward through the rest.

Nick sued Hall and Keystone. There were several lawsuits, but we are concerned here with the tax-related lawsuit.

The Court decided that Keystone and Hall filed a fraudulent 1099 because of “spite arising out of the larger disputes between the parties.” Code Section 7434 allows for damages in this circumstance, and the Court gets to decide.

The Court awarded Nick damages of $178,954.

Our case this time was Angelopoulos v Keystone Orthopedic Specialists.

Yet Another Preparer Penalty Starting In 2018

We have spoken before of social-worker duties the tax Code expects of a professional preparing a return with an earned income credit, a refundable child credit or the American Opportunity (that is, the college) credit.

Take the earned income credit, for example. If you have two children, that credit can be $5,616; have three and the credit can reach $6,318. Remember that the credit is refundable – meaning the IRS will write you a check – and no wonder this provision is rife with fraud.  

If the IRS wanted to push-back on the fraud, it could require a preparer to review documentation that a child (or several) actually lives with the parent/taxpayer.

To be certain to get the preparer’s attention, the IRS could also impose a penalty if the preparer failed to do so.

Let’s have the IRS tighten this up a notch by also requiring a form or schedule with the return requiring the preparer to declare that he/she did all of this Sherlocking.

Which is why I will not prepare a return with these credits unless I have known (or, alternatively, my partner has known) the client for a while.

This rule is expanding in 2018 to include head of household filing status.

Oh boy.

Let’s go through a Tax Court case I was reviewing recently.

(1)  Joe and Cerice lived together and had a child in 2006.

(2)  The relationship went south either late 2014 or early 2015.

(3)  Cerise moved in with her mother.

(4)  Joe and Cerise started sharing custody, although Joe’s parents also took care of the child while he was working.

(5)  There was a custody proceeding in 2015, and the Court order gave each parent equal time. For some reason, the Court came back in 2016 and reduced Joe’s share of parental time.

(6)  The Court stated that Cerise could claim the child in 2015 and all odd-numbered years. Joe could claim the child in even-numbered years.

QUESTION: Who claims the child in 2014?

The technical detail here is that head-of-household status requires the child to spend more than one-half of the year with the claiming parent.

Let’s say that I have never met Joe or Cerise. I meet with either one, who asks me to prepare the 2014 return. Whoever I meet with wants to claim the child, of course, as it will power head of household status, an earned income credit and a child credit. I suspect either Joe or Cerise could present a formidable argument that the child was with him/her for more than one-half of the year.

What am I supposed to do?

I would of course look at the custody agreement, but that doesn’t start until the following year. No help there.

I could get assurance from the other parent that he/she is not claiming the child.

Let’s say that fails.

I could get a letter from the pediatrician, I suppose.

Or the school, if the child were old enough.

Or maybe the landlord where either Joe or Cerise lives.

Here I am social-working this situation. If I don’t, the IRS can penalize me $510. For each instance. Miss both the head of household and refundable child care credit and the penalty is $1,020.

Which might be more than I am charging to prepare the return.

How keen would you be to accept Joe or Cerise as a client?

That is my point.