Distinguishing Capital Gains From Ordinary Income

The holy grail of tax planning is to get to a zero tax rate. That is a rare species. I have seen only one repeatable fact pattern in the last few years leading to a zero tax rate, and that pattern involved not making much money. You can guess that there isn’t much demand for a tax strategy that begins with “you cannot make a lot of money….”

The next best plan is capital gains. There is a difference in tax rates between ordinary income (up to 39.6%) and capital gains (up to 20%). A tax geek could muddy the water by including phase-outs (such as itemized deductions or personal exemptions), the 15% capital gains rate (for incomes below $457,600 if you are married) or the net investment income tax (3.8%), but let’s limit our discussion just to the 20% versus 39.6% tax rates. You can bet that a lot of tax alchemy goes into creating capital gains at the expense of ordinary income.

The tax literature is littered with cases involving the sale of land and capital gains. If you or I sell a piece of raw land, it is almost incontrovertibly a capital gain. Let’s say that you are a developer, however, and make your living selling land. The answer changes, as land is inventory for you, the same as that flat screen TV is inventory for Best Buy.

Let’s say that I see you doing well, and you motivate me to devote less energy to tax practice and more to real estate. At what point do I become a developer like you: after my second sale, after my first million dollars, or is it something else?

The tax Code comes in with Section 1221(a), which defines a capital asset by exclusion: every asset is a capital asset unless the Code says otherwise.

For purposes of this subtitle, the term “capital asset” means property held by the taxpayer (whether or not connected with his trade or business), but does not include—

(1)  stock in trade of the taxpayer or other property of a kind which would properly be included in the inventory of the taxpayer if on hand at the close of the taxable year, or property held by the taxpayer primarily for sale to customers in the ordinary course of his trade or business;

Let’s take Section 1221(a)(1) out for a spin, shall we? Let’s talk about Long, and you tell me whether we have a capital asset or not.

Philip Long lives in Florida, which immediately strikes me as a good idea as we go into winter here. From 1994 to 2006 he operated a sole proprietorship by the name of Las Olas Tower Company (LOTC). Long had a drive and desire to build a high-rise condominium, which he was going to call Las Olas Tower.

He is going to build a condo, make millions and sit on a beach.

Problem: he doesn’t own the land on which to put the condo. Solution: He has to buy the land.

He finds someone with land, and that someone is Las Olas Riverside Hotel (LORH). LORC and LORH are not the same people, by the way, although “Las Olas” seems a popular name down there. Long enters into an agreement to buy land owned by LORH.

Long steps up his involvement: he is reviewing designs with an architect, obtaining government permits and approval, distributing promotional materials, meeting with potential customers. The ground hasn’t even been cleared or graded and he has twenty percent of the condo units under contract. Long is working it.

LORH gets cold feet and decides not to sell the land.

Yipes! Considering that Long needs to land on which to erect the condo, this presents an issue. He does the only thing he can do: he sues for specific performance. He needs that land.

He is also running out of cash. A friend of his lends money to another company owned by Long to keep this thing afloat. Long is juggling. Who knows how much longer Long can keep the balls in the air?

In November, 2005 Long wins his case. The Court gives LORH 326 days to comply with the sales agreement.

But this has taken its toll on Long. He wants out. Let someone finish the lawsuit, buy the land, erect the condo, make the sales. Long has had enough. He meets someone who takes this thing off his hands for $5,750,000. He sells what he has, mess and all. 

    QUESTION: Is this ordinary or capital gain income?

The difference means approximately $1.4 million in tax, so give it some thought.

The closer Long gets to being a developer the closer he gets to a maximum tax rate. The Courts have looked at the Winthrop case, which provides factors for divining someone’s primary purpose for holding real property. The factors include:

1. The purpose for acquisition of property
2. The extent of developing the property            
3. The extent of the taxpayer’s efforts to sell

The Tax Court looked and saw that Long had a history of developing land, had hired an architect, obtained permits and government approvals and had even gotten sales contracts on approximately 20% of the to-be-built condo units. A developer has ordinary income. Long was a developer. Long had ordinary income.

Is this the answer you expected?

It wasn’t the answer Long expected. He appealed to the Eleventh Circuit.

What were the grounds for appeal?

Think about Long’s story. There is no denying that a developer subdivides, improves and sells real estate. Long was missing a crucial ingredient however: he did not have any real estate to sell. All he had was a contract to buy, which is not the same thing. In fact, when he cashed out he still did not have real estate. He had won a case ordering someone to sell real estate, but the sale had not yet occurred.

The IRS did not see it that way. As far as they were concerned, Long had found a pot of gold, and that gold was ordinary income under the assignment of income doctrine. That doctrine says that you cannot sell a right to money (think a lottery winning, for example) and convert ordinary income to capital gains. You cannot sell your winning lottery ticket and get capital gains, because if you had just collected the lottery winnings you would have had ordinary income. All you did was “assign” that ordinary income to someone else.

The problem with the IRS point of view is that someone still had to buy the land, finish the permit process, clear and grade, erect a building, form a condo association, market the condos, sell individual units and so on. Long wasn’t going to do it. There was the potential there to make money, but the money truck had not yet backed into Long’s loading dock. Long was not selling profit had had already earned, because nothing had yet been “earned.”

Long won his day in Appeals Court.

He had ordinary income in Tax Court and then he had capital gains in Appeals Court.

Even the pros can have a hard time telling the difference sometimes.

Why Audit Veterans Organizations?

I suppose that any examination of an exempt organization by the IRS nowadays is going to be viewed in harsh light.

What got me thinking about this is the controversy concerning IRS audits of veterans organizations. While it hasn’t garnered the attention of the 501(c)(4) imbroglio, there has nonetheless been harsh criticism. U.S. Senator Moran (Kansas) for example has stated:

On the heels of Americans' anger over revelations that the IRS intentionally targeted certain groups, it has been brought to my attention that the IRS is now turning their sights toward our nation's veterans. The IRS seems to be auditing veteran service organizations by requiring private member military service forms. If a post is unable or not willing to turn over this personal information, it is possible they could face a fine of $1,000 per day.

I am deeply concerned about this revelation and will insist on answers. This policy ... deserves, at a minimum, a thorough look to make certain the IRS is not overstepping bounds of privacy and respect for our nation's heroes."

For its part, the House Veterans Affairs committee has threated to investigate what the IRS is up to.

So why would the IRS – in a time of budget restraints – be auditing these groups?

A couple of reasons come to mind:

•  The IRS has to audit exempt groups occasionally, if only in the interest of enforcing tax compliance among all exempt groups.

• Veterans organizations have unique tax requirements that are relatively easy to run afoul of.

Reason (1) is easy to understand, even if we would rather have a root canal than undergo a tax audit. Reason (2) is a bit more involved.

Tax-exempt organizations come in multiple flavors, depending on what the organization does. For example, a veterans organization could qualify as a social welfare group – that is, a 501(c)(4) – given its purpose of promoting patriotism, championing the issues of veterans, assisting needy and disabled veterans and conducting social and recreational activities among its membership.   

Let’s go a step further, and you will understand how the sausage of tax law comes to be.

Let’s say the veterans organization buys a building. Let’s say it puts a kitchen and bar in said building. We may now have a social club under Sec 501(c)(7), the same as a college fraternity or private golf course. Had you and I gotten together and built our own golf course, our activity (of playing golf) would not be taxable. The tax Code acknowledges this and allows for larger groups to do what you and I could have done together if only we were multibillionaires. There could be tax consequences if we did other things, but let’s keep our discussion general.

In 1969 Congress expanded the reach of the unrelated business income tax (UBT). UBT by definition relates to tax-exempt organizations, and it means that the organization has to pay tax on profitable business activities that are not in furtherance of its tax-exempt purpose.

What does that mean? Let’s go back to that golf course you and I built. Let’s say that we rent out our course to the PGA annually for a major tournament. We of course charge the PGA big bucks for using our course. We apply as a (c)(7), albeit a small one, considering it is only you and me. The IRS is not going to let us pocket all that money and not pay tax. Why? Because it is not our exempt purpose to rent our course to the PGA.

The veterans organizations became upset with the UBT. It was not even the kitchen and bar, truthfully, as much as it was the insurances – life, health and so on – that they were offering to their members. That was a big deal, and their insurance activity was now being pulled into the orbit of the UBT because of that (c)(4) or (c)(7) status.

Congress, thinking that the answer to everything problem is yet another law, passed Code section 501(c)(19): 

(19)  A post or organization of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States, or an auxiliary unit or society of, or a trust or foundation for, any such post or organization—

(A)  organized in the United States or any of its possessions,

(B)  at least 75 percent of the members of which are past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States and substantially all of the other members of which are individuals who are cadets or are spouses, widows, widowers, ancestors, or lineal descendants of past or present members of the Armed Forces of the United States or of cadets, and

(C)  no part of the net earnings of which inures to the benefit of any private shareholder or individual.

And veterans organizations now had an escape clause from the UBT – as long as they could fit into (c)(19).

It worked well enough for long enough. And now it is starting to work less well.

Why?

It’s the math. Code section (c)(19) states that at least 75% of the members must be veterans  and substantially all other members  (generally defined as 90% or more) must be spouses, widows and descendants. Let’s go through the math. To start, at least 75% of the members must be veterans. Of the remaining, 90% or more must be related to a veteran. Doing the math, only 2.5% of the total membership (25% times 10%) may consist of non-veterans or persons unelated to a veteran.

That is a tight window.

Statistics show over 19 million veterans in the United States. More than 9 million are age 65 or over. Veterans are aging, and every year there are fewer of them. Those demographics are pushing on the percentage tests of (c)(19).

Let’s point out another problem.

How do you prove the 75%? I suppose you could (and probably should) obtain documentation from the veterans. The same could be said for proving the other 90%.  It would be business- standard procedure to keep files and maintain a policy and post signs that only members and families are admitted. I suppose we could boost documentation even more by requiring sign-in books, but you get the idea.

Is it intrusive? You bet. We are talking about IDs and proof of military service, for example. The IRS aggravated the matter recently by asking for DD 214 forms, which is the paperwork accompanying military discharge. The IRS had not routinely asked for this before, so many organizations were caught flat-footed. To exacerbate the matter, the IRS then threatened $1,000 per day penalties.

Cue the resentment and anger of organizations like the American Legion. These generally are not organizations that can easily accommodate drastic changes in tax rules. Many are small, reliant on volunteers and operating on a tight budget.  One cannot approach them as though one were dealing with the tax department of an Apple or Pfizer.

What is the answer? I don’t know. The 501(c) area is a motley of tax grab-bag accreted over the years. Some (c)’s can receive tax-exempt contributions; others cannot. Some organizations are (c)’s just by existing; others have to formally apply and get approval. Some do not pay income tax unless they get carried away and flat-out run a for-profit business. Others pay tax on income “not sufficiently related” to their exempt purpose, a standard sometimes bordering on the mystical. Some are huge, own buildings and have tens of thousands of employees. Others are tiny, have space donated and do everything through volunteers.

It is maddening, but they all have to be (at least in theory) auditable by the IRS.

And there is the rub.

The 2014 Tax Act and Professional Employer Organizations (PEOs)

We know that Congress passed, and the President signed, the Tax Increase Prevention Act of 2014 at the end of last year. This is the tax bill that retroactively resurrected certain tax deductions that many taxpayers have become used to, such as deducting sales taxes (rather than state income taxes)  should one live in Tennessee, Florida or Texas or deducting (a certain amount of) tuition payments if one’s child is in college.

There is something else this bill did that was not as well publicized.

It has to do with professional employer organizations, known as PEO’s. These are companies that provide human resource (HR) functions, such as the paperwork involved in hiring, as well as running payroll and depositing payroll taxes and other withholdings.

There has long been a hitch with PEOs and payroll taxes: the IRS considered the underlying employer to still be liable for withholdings if the PEO failed to remit or failed to do so timely. The IRS took the position that an employer could not delegate its responsibility for those withholdings. To phrase it differently, the employer could delegate the task but could not delegate the responsibility.

You can guess what happened next. There were cases of PEO’s diverting withholdings for their own use, then going out of business and leaving their employer-clients in the lurch. If you were one of those employer-clients, the experience proved to be very expensive. You had paid payroll taxes a first time to the PEO and then a second time when the IRS held you responsible.

The answer was to watch over the PEO like a hawk. The IRS encouraged employer-clients to routinely go into the electronic payment system (EFTPS), for example, to be certain that payroll taxes were being deposited.

That unfortunately collided with many an employer’s reason to use a PEO in the first place: to have someone else “take care of it.”

Back to the tax bill. Stuck in with the tax extenders was something called the ABLE Act, which is a Section-529-like-plan, but for disabled individuals rather than for college expenses.

Stuck (in turn) onto the ABLE Act was a brand-new Code section just for PEOs. The provision requires the IRS to establish a PEO certification program by July 1, 2015. There will be a $1,000 annual fee to participate, but – once approved – the IRS will allow the PEO to be solely responsible for the employer-client’s payroll taxes.

You have to admit, this is a marketing bonanza if you own a PEO. It will separate you from a non-PEO who is bidding on the same prospective client.

The PEO will have to post a bond in order to participate in the program. In addition the PEO will have to be audited annually by a CPA. The PEO will have to submit that audited financial statement to the IRS.

I do not know the answer as of this writing, but I have a strong suspicion the AICPA was in the room when that audit requirement was included. Why do I say that? Because only CPAs are allowed to render an opinion that financial statements are “presented fairly in accordance with generally accepted accounting principles.” 

NOTE: That would be CPAs who practice as auditors. There are CPAS who do not. For example, I specialize in taxes.

There is – by the way – risk to the PEO. This is not a one way street. The PEO will be responsible for the payroll taxes, even if the employer-client does not pay the PEO.