An Extreme Way To Deduct Expenses Twice

The estate tax is different from the income tax.

The latter is assessed on your income. This puts stress in defining what is income from what is not, but such is the concept.

The estate tax on assessed on what you own when you die, which is why it is also referred to as the “death” tax. If you try to give away your assets to avoid the death tax, the gift tax will step in and probably put you back in the same spot.

Granted, a tax is a tax, meaning that someone is taking your money. To a great extent, the estate tax and income tax stay out of each other’s way.

With some exceptions.

And a recent case reminds us of unexpected outcomes when these two taxes intersect.

Let’s set it up.

You may recall that – upon death – one’s assets pass to one’s beneficiaries at fair market value (FMV). This is also called the “step up,” as the deceased’s cost or basis in the asset goes away and you (as beneficiary) can use FMV as your new “basis” in the asset. There are reasons for this:

(1) The deceased already paid tax on the income used to buy the asset in the first place.

(2) The deceased is paying tax again for having died with “too many” assets, with the government deciding the definition of “too many.” It wasn’t that long ago that the government thought $600,000 was too much. Think about that for a moment.

(3) To continue using the decedent’s back-in-time cost as the beneficiary’s basis is to repetitively tax the same money. To camouflage this by saying that income tax is different from estate tax is farcical: tax is tax.

I personally have one more reason:

(4) Sometimes cost information does not exist, as that knowledge went to the grave with the deceased. Decades go by; no one knows when or how the deceased acquired the asset; government and other records are not updated or transferred to new archive platforms which allow one to research. The politics of envy does not replace the fact that sometimes simply one cannot come up with this number.

Mr. Backemeyer was a farmer. In 2010 he purchased seed, chemicals, fertilizer and fuel and deducted them on his 2010 joint return.

COMMENT: Farmers have some unique tax goodies in the Code. For example, a farmer is allowed to deduct the above expenses, even if he/she buys them at the end of the year with the intent to use them the following year. This is a loosening of the “nonincidental supplies” rule, which generally holds up the tax deduction until one actually uses the supplies.

So Mr. Backemeyer deducted the above. They totaled approximately $235,000.

He died in March, 2011.

Let’s go to our estate tax rule:

His beneficiary (his wife) receives a new basis in the supplies. That basis is fair market value at Mr. Backemeyer’s date of death ($235,000).

What does that mean?

Mr. Backemeyer deducted his year-end farming supplies in 2010. In tax-speak,” his basis was zero (-0-), because he deducted the cost in 2010. Generally speaking, once you deduct something your basis in said something is zero.

Go on.

His basis in the farming supplies was zero. Her basis in the farming supplies was $235,000. Now witness the power of this fully armed and operational step-up.

Is that a Rogue One allusion?

No, it is Return of the Jedi. Shheeessh.

Anyway, with her new basis, Mrs. Backemeyer deducted the same $235,000 again on her 2011 income tax return.

No way. There has to be a rule.

          That is what the IRS thought.

There is a doctrine in the tax Code called “economic benefit.” What sets it up is that you deduct something – say your state taxes. In a later year, you get repaid some of the money that you deducted – say a tax refund. The IRS takes the position – understandably – that some of that refund is income. The amount of income is equal to a corresponding portion of the deduction from the previous year. You received an economic benefit by deducting, and now you have to repay that benefit.

It is a great argument, except for one thing. What happened in Backemeyer was not an income tax deduction bouncing back. No, what set it up was an estate tax bouncing back on an income tax return in a subsequent year.

COMMENT: She received a new basis pursuant to estate tax rules. While there was an income tax consequence, its origin was not in the income tax.

The Court reminded the IRS of this distinction. The economic benefit concept was not designed to stretch that far. The Court explained it as follows:

(1) He deducted something in 2010.

(2) She deducted the same something in 2011.

(3) Had he died in 2010, would the two have cancelled each other out?

To which the Court said no. If he had died in 2010, he would have deducted the supplies; the estate tax rule would have kicked-in; her basis would have reset to FMV; and she could have deducted the supplies again.

It is a crazy answer but the right answer.

Is it a loophole? 

Some loophole. I do not consider tax planning that involves dying to be a likely candidate for abuse. 

HRAs Are Back

I am glad to see that Health Reimbursement Accounts (HRAs) are coming back.

They should never have gone away. They were, unfortunately, sacrificed to the idiocracy. That crowd would rather have you starve than give you half a loaf.

And henceforce they shall be called Qualified Small Employer Health Insurance Arrangements (QSEHRAs).

They are sorta like the former HRAs, with a couple of twists.

So what are these things?

Simple. I used to have one.

My HRA covered all the medical incidentals: deductibles, co-pays, chiropractor, dental, eyeglasses and so on. One would submit out-of-pocket medical expenses, and the firm would reimburse. There was a ceiling, but I do not recall what it was. The ceiling was fairly high, as my partner had some ongoing medical expenses.  The HRA was a way to help out.

Then they went away.

One now didn’t have “insurance.” One now had “plans.”

The demimondes, of course, decided they could tell you what had to be in your “plan.”

Take a nun.

No problem: you had to have contraceptives in your plan.

A 50-year old tax CPA?

No sweat: prenatal care in your plan.

But you don’t need prenatal care.

Stinks to be you. 

HRAs were sacrificed to the loudest of the boombots.

You see, an HRA did not “cover” pre-existing conditions. It did not offer “minimum essential” coverage. It also could not do your laundry or fix a magnificent BLT on football Sunday, but those latter limitations were not politically charged.

The HRA did not cover pre-existing. True. It did however pay for your co-pays, out-of-pocket and deductibles, but not – technically – your preexisting. It seems covering existing was just not good enough.

It did not provide minimum essential. True. It was not insurance. It was there to help out, not to replace or pretend to be insurance. But it was sweet to have the extra money.

Too bad. HRAs had to go.

People complained. People like my former partner. Or me, for that matter.

So a compromise was reached. You could have an HRA as long as you matched it with insurance that met all the necessary check-the-box features we were told to buy.

What if you did not provide health insurance? Perhaps you were a small company of 8 people, and insurance was not financially feasible at the moment. Could you offer an HRA (say $2,000) to help out your employees? Something is better than nothing, right?

Nope.

Well, technically you could.

But there was a fine. Of $100 per day. Per employee.

Let me do the math on this: $100 times 365 days = $36,500 per year.

Per employee.

There goes that $2,000 you could give your employees.

To be fair, the government indicated that they would not enforce these penalties through 2016, but you would have to trust them.

Right ….

I had this conversation with clients. More than once.

Multiply me by however many tax practitioners across the nation giving the same advice.

How many people lost their $2,000 because of this insanity?

Fortunately, HRAs are back.

In 2017. Sort of. 

They will be available to employers with fewer than 50 full-time-equivalent employees.  

All employees with more than three years of service must be eligible to participate.

Employees employed less than 90 days, are under age 25, are part-time or seasonal can be excluded.

Must be funded 100% by the employer.

Salary reductions are not permitted.

There are dollar limitations ($4,950 if employee-only, $10,000 if family/dependent).

There may be a hitch from the employee side:

·      The HRA is tax-free as long as the employee has health insurance.

·      The HRA is taxable if the employee does not have health insurance.

COMMENT: I suppose an employer will require proof of insurance/non-insurance before writing the first check. This will tell them whether the HRA reimbursement will be taxable to the employee.

·      If the employee is on an Exchange, any subsidy will be reduced by the amount reimbursable under the HRA. This is an indirect way of saying that a purpose of the new HRA is to allow small employers to reimburse employees for individual insurance premiums. Prior to 2017, this act was prohibited under ObamaCare.

Not surprisingly, there will be yet-another-code on the W-2 to report the benefit available under the HRA, but we do not have to worry about it until next year’s (that is, the 2017) W-2.

And they did away with the $100/employee/day/yada yada yada absurdity.

Hey, progress. Back to the way it used to be.

Merry Christmas

Would You Believe?

It is a specialized issue, but I am going to write about it anyway.

Why?

Because I believe this may be the only time I have had this issue, and I have been in practice for over thirty years. There isn’t a lot in the tax literature either.

As often happens, I am minding my own business when someone – someone who knows I am a tax geek – asks:

          “Steve, do you know the tax answer to ….”

For future reference: “Whatever it is - I don’t. By the way, I am leaving the office today on time and I won’t have time this weekend to research as I am playing golf and sleeping late.”

You know who you are, Mr. to-remain-unnamed-and-anonymous-of-course-Brian-the-name-will-never-pass-my-lips.

Here it is:

Can a trust make a charitable donation?

Doesn’t sound like much, so let’s set-up the issue.

A trust is generally a three-party arrangement:

·      Party of the first part sets up and funds the trust.

·      Party of the second part receives money from the trust, either now or later.

·      Party of the third part administrates the trust, including writing checks.

The party of the third part is called the “trustee” or “fiduciary.” This is a unique relationship, as the trustee is trying to administer according to the wishes of the party of the first part, who may or may not be deceased. The very concept of “fiduciary” means that you are putting someone’s interest ahead of yours: in this case, you are prioritizing the party of the second part, also called the beneficiary.

There can be more than one beneficiary, by the way.

There can also be beneficiaries at different points in time.

For example, I can set-up a trust with all income to my wife for her lifetime, with whatever is left over (called the “corpus” or “principal”) going to my daughter.

This sets up an interesting tension: the interests of the first beneficiary may not coincide with the interests of the second beneficiary. Consider my example. Whatever my wife draws upon during her lifetime will leave less for my daughter when her mom dies. Now, this tension does not exist in the Hamilton family, but you can see how it could for other families. Take for example a second marriage, especially one later in life. The “steps” my not have that “we are all one family” perspective when the dollars start raining.

Back to our fiduciary: how would you like to be the one who decides where the dollars rain? That sounds like a headache to me.

How can the trustmaker make this better?

A tried-and-true way is to have the party of the first part leave instructions, standards and explanations of his/her wishes. For example, I can say “my wife can draw all the income and corpus she wants without having to explain anything to anybody. If there is anything left over, our daughter can have it. If not, too bad.”

Pretty clear, eh?

That is the heart of the problem with charitable donations by a trust.

Chances are, some party-of-the-second-part is getting less money at the end of the day because of that donation. Has to, as the money is not going to a beneficiary.

Which means the party of the first part had better leave clear instructions as to the who/what/when of the donation.

Our case this week is a trust created when Harvey Hubbell died. He died in 1957, so this trust has been around a while. The trust was to distribute fixed amounts to certain individuals for life. Harvey felt strongly about it, because - if there was insufficient income to make the payment – the trustee was authorized to reach into trust principal to make up the shortfall.

Upon the last beneficiary to die, the trust had 10 years to wrap up its affairs.

Then there was this sentence:

All unused income and the remainder of the principal shall be used and distributed, in such proportion as the Trustees deem best, for such purpose or purposes, to be selected by them as the time of such distribution, as will make such uses and distributions exempt from Ohio inheritance and Federal estate taxes and for no other purpose.”  

This trust had been making regular donations for a while. The IRS picked one year – 2009 – and disallowed a $64,279 donation.

Here is IRC Sec 642(c):

(c)Deduction for amounts paid or permanently set aside for a charitable purpose

(1)General rule

In the case of an estate or trust (other than a trust meeting the specifications of subpart B), there shall be allowed as a deduction in computing its taxable income (in lieu of the deduction allowed by section 170(a), relating to deduction for charitable, etc., contributions and gifts) any amount of the gross income, without limitation, which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument is, during the taxable year, paid for a purpose specified in section 170(c) (determined without regard to section 170(c)(2)(A)). If a charitable contribution is paid after the close of such taxable year and on or before the last day of the year following the close of such taxable year, then the trustee or administrator may elect to treat such contribution as paid during such taxable year. The election shall be made at such time and in such manner as the Secretary prescribes by regulations.

The key here is the italicized part:        

“which pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument…”

The Code wants to know what the party of the first part intended, phrased in tax-speak as “pursuant to the terms of the governing instrument.”

The trustees argued that they could make donations via the following verbiage:

in such proportion as the Trustees deem best, for such purposes or purposes, to be selected by them as the time of such distribution….”

Problem, said the IRS. That verbiage refers to a point in time: the time when the trust enters its ten-year wrap-up and not before then. The trustees had to abide by the governing instrument, and said instrument did not say they could distribute monies to charity before that time.

The trustees had to think of something fast.

Here is something: there is a “latent ambiguity” in the will. That ambiguity allows for the trustees’ discretion on the charitable donations issue.

Nice argument, trustees. We at CTG are impressed.

They are referring to a judicial doctrine that cuts trustees some slack when the following happens:

(1) The terms of the trust are crystal-clear when read in the light of normal day: when it snows in Cincinnati during this winter, the trust will ….

(2) However, the terms of the trust can also be read differently in the light of abnormal day: it did not snow in Cincinnati during this winter, so the trust will ….

The point is that both readings are plausible (would you believe “possible?”).

It is just that no one seriously considered scenario (2) when drafting the document. This is the “latent ambiguity” in the trust instrument.

Don’t think so, said the Court. That expanded authority was given the trustees during that ten-year period and not before.

In fact, prior to the ten years the trustees were to invade principal to meet the annual payouts, if necessary. The trustmaker was clearly interested that the beneficiaries receive their money every year. It is very doubtful he intended that any money not go their way.

It was only upon the death of the last beneficiary that the trustees had some free play.

The Court decided there was no latent ambiguity. They were pretty comfortable they understood what the trustmaker wanted. He wanted the beneficiaries to get paid every year.

And the trust lost its charitable deduction.

For the home gamers, our case this time was Harvey C. Hubbell Trust v Commissioner.