Getting ROBbed

I was skimming a Tax Court decision that leads with:

“… respondent issued a notice of deficiency … of $249,263.62, additions to tax … of $20,228.76 and $22,476.41, respectively and an enhanced accuracy-related penalty … of $63,918.33”

It was Roth IRA decision.

We have spoken before about putting a business in an IRA, and a Roth is just a type of IRA. This tax structure is sometimes referred to as a “ROBS” – roll-over as business start-up. 

Odds are the only one who is going to get robbed is you. I had earlier looked into and decided that I did not like the ROBS structure. There are too many ways that it can detonate. I do not practice high-wire tax.  

I have also noticed the IRS pursuing this area more aggressively. There often is complacency when a “new” tax idea takes, as the IRS may not respond immediately. That lag is not an imprimatur by the IRS, although self-interested parties may present it as such. I have been in practice long enough to have heard that sales pitch more than once.

Let’s discuss Polowniak v Commissioner.

Polowniak had over 35 years of marketing experience with Fortune 500 companies, including Proctor & Gamble, Johnson & Johnson and Kimberly Services. In 1997 he formed his own company – Solution Strategies, Inc. (Strategies). He was the sole shareholder and its only consultant.

In 2001 he received a nice contract - $680,000 – from Delphi Automotive Systems – which had him travel extensively to Europe, Asia and South America. 

Now the turn. His financial advisor recommended an attorney who pitched the idea of “privately owned Roth IRA corporations,” also known as PIRACs. These things are not rocket science. In most cases an individual already has an existing company, likely profitable or soon to be. Said individual sets up a Roth IRA. Said Roth purchases the stock of a new corporation (NewCo), which amazingly does exactly the same thing that the existing corporation did, and likely with the same customers, vendors, employee, office space and so on.

The idea of course is that NewCo is going to be very profitable, which allows the opportunity to stuff a lot of money into the Roth in a very short period of time.

So Polowniak sets up a NewCo, which he names Bevco Investments, Inc. (Bevco). There is a little flutter in the story as Bevco selects a January year-end, meaning that a sharp tax advisor may have the opportunity to move things back-and-forth between a calendar-year taxpayer and an entity that doesn’t file its tax return until a year later.

This is fairly routine tax work.

Polowniak owned 98 percent and his administrative assistant owned 2 percent.  His wife later purchased 6% of Bevco.

Strategies and Bevco entered into an agreement whereby it would receive 75% of Strategies revenues for 2002.

By the way, Delphi was never informed of Bevco. Neither was the administrative assistant.

The years passed. Polowniak let the subcontract with Bevco lapse.

And he started depositing all the Strategies revenue from Delphi into Bevco. There was no more pretense of 75 percent.

Bevco was finally dissolved in 2006.

And then came the IRS.

It went after Solutions, which did not report the $680,000 from Delhi. You remember, the same amount it was to share 75% with Bevco.

Sheesh.

It also came after Polowniak personally. The IRS wanted penalties for excess funding into a Roth.

Huh?

There are limits for funding a Roth. For example, the 2015 limit for someone age-50-and-over (ahem) is $6,500. If you go over, then there is a 6% penalty. Mind you, the 6% doesn’t sound like much, but it becomes pernicious, as it compounds on itself every year. Tax practitioners refer to this as “cascading,” and the math can be surprising.

How did he overfund?

Simple. He took existing money from Solutions and put it into Bevco. It is the equivalent of you depositing money at Key Bank rather than Fifth Third.

Polowniak’s job right now was to convince the Court that was a substantive reason for the Solutions –Bevco structure. If Bevco was just an alter ego, he was going to lose and lose big.

He trotted put Hellweg, a tax case featuring Roth IRAs and Domestic International Sales Corporations (DISCs). Whereas the taxpayer won that case, there was some arcane tax reasoning behind it, likely exacerbated by those DISCs.

The Court did not think Hellweg was on point. It thought that Repetto was much more applicable, pointing out:

·        All the services performed by Bevco had previously been performed by Polowniak through Strategies

·        Polowniak performed all the services under the contract with Delphi

·        Since he was the only person performing services, the transfer of payments between Strategies and Bevco had no substantive effect on the Delphi contract

·        Delphi did not know of the contract with Bevco; in fact, neither did the administrative assistant

·        The business dealing between Strategies and Bevco were not business-normative. For example, Bevco never kept time or accounting records of its services, nor did it ever invoice Strategies.

The Court decided against Polowniak. It did not respect the PIRAC, and as far as it was concerned all the Delphi money put into Bevco was an overfunding.

And that is how you blow through a third of a million dollars.

Is there something Polowniak could have done?

He could of course have respected business norms and treated both as separate companies with their own accounting systems, phone numbers, contracts and so forth. It would have helped had Strategies not been depositing and withdrawing monies from Bevco’s bank account.

Still, I do not think that would have been enough.

There are two major problems that I see:

(1) There was an existing contract in place with Delphi. This is not the same as starting Bevco and pounding the streets for work. There is a very strong assignment of income feel, and I suspect just about any Court would have been disquieted by it.

(2) There were not enough players on the field. If I own a company with 75 employees, I may be able to take a slice of its various activities and place it inside a PIRAC or ROBS or whatever, without the thing being seen as my alter ego. Polowniak however was a one-man show. This made it much easier for the IRS to argue substance over form, which the IRS successfully argued here.

 

My advice? Leave these things alone. There are a hundred ways that these IRA-owned companies can blow up, and the IRS has sounded the trumpet that it is pursuing them.

Pay Payroll Taxes Or Go Out Of Business?

We have talked before about the “big boy” penalty. It is one of the harshest penalties in the tax Code.

This is a payroll related penalty. It is not because you were late with a payment or failed to send in a return on time. No sir, it kicks in when you do not send the government any money at all.

And I am reading about two guys who decided to play big boy. One of them surprised me.

The company itself was based in Rhode Island and provided wireless internet in public spaces. Think Facebook at the airport, for example.

Business tanked. Cash was tight. Vendors did not get paid, including the IRS.

The company needed help. They hired Richard Schiffmann as president in October, 2004. In October, 2005 he brought in Stephen Cummings (who had worked there previously as a consultant) to be chief financial officer.

Cummings quickly found out they had problems with back taxes.

The Board granted check-signing authority to the pair: Schiffmann up to $100,000 and Cummings up to $75,000.

The two tried; they really did. But there was nothing there. The Board fired the two in June, 2006.

You know that the IRS eventually knocked on the door. They were angry and they wanted scalps. They went after Schiffmann and Cummings for the big boy penalty.

In the literature, this is known as the trust fund recovery or responsible person penalty. It addresses the income and FICA taxes withheld from employees. Mind you, the IRS wants the employer FICA also, but it is emphasizing the employee withholding. The IRS takes the position that this was never the employer’s money, whose function was solely to transfer the money as agent for the employees to the IRS.

The penalty is 100%.

It is intended to be Defcon 1.

The IRS went after Schiffmann for $394,334 and against Cummings for $254,280.

Think about this. You got hired. You were there for nine months. I doubt you got paid anywhere near $254,280. This is the lousiest job ever.

The two fought back, although there were some procedural misses we will not discuss but which leave me scratching my head. The two for example raised the following arguments:

(1) Schiffmann argued that he did not learn of the liability until late 2005. The most he could be liable for is two or three quarters, which would not add-up to $394 thousand.

He had a point. The penalty technically goes quarter-by-quarter.

But only in a classroom or in a textbook. In the real world, the IRS will argue that – if you could write a check – then you could have written checks for both current and past payroll taxes. Those past taxes become your problem.

And Schiffmann could write checks up to $100,000. Cummings could write up to $75,000.

Gentlemen, let me introduce problem. Problem, let me introduce gentlemen.

(2) They argued that all monies were encumbered and spoken for. They remitted what they could.

This is the “I had to pay … or the business would have folded” argument.

The IRS will respect encumbrances, but there better be a legal obligation. A pinky swear is not enough. 

The IRS will not respect a responsible person prioritizing them down, when the IRS had as much right to what money may exist as anyone else.

Schiffmann and Cummings could not meet that test.

(3) The Board would not let them pay certain bills.

More specifically, the Board would not let them pay taxes.

Now we have something. The IRS looked into this. It decided that there were two directors who raised a fuss, but it also decided that those two could be outvoted by the remaining directors.

And the directors never formally voted on a resolution, so the IRS could presuppose that the two would have been outvoted.

Then the IRS made an interesting observation: EVEN IF the Board has prohibited the two from paying the taxes, the most that would have happened is that the Board would have joined them in also being subject to the penalty. It would not have gotten Schiffmann and Cummings off the hook.

The two were held responsible.

Cummings was the one who surprised me.

He used to be an IRS field auditor.

Tax Mulligans and Tennessee Walking Horses

Here is the Court:

While a taxpayer is fee to organize [her] affairs as [she] chooses, nevertheless once having done so, [she] must accept the tax consequences of her choice, whether contemplated or not, and may not enjoy the benefit of some other route [she] might have chosen to follow but did not.”

This is the tax equivalent of “you made your bed, now lie in it.” The IRS reserves the right to challenge how you structure a transaction, but – once decided – you yourself are bound by your decision. 

Let’s talk about Stuller v Commissioner.  They were appealing a District Court decision.

The Stullers lived in Illinois, and they owned several Steak ‘n Shake franchises. Apparently they did relatively well, as they raised Tennessee walking horses. In 1985 they decided to move their horses to warmer climes, so they bought a farm in Tennessee. They entered into an agreement with a horse trainer addressing prize monies, breeding, ownership of foals and so on.

In 1992 they put the horse activity into an S corporation.

They soon needed a larger farm, so they purchased a house and 332 acres (again in Tennessee) for $800,000. They did not put the farm into the S corporation but rather kept it personally and charged the farm rent.

So far this is routine tax planning.

Between 1994 and 2005, the S corporation lost money, except for 1997 when it reported a $1,500 profit. All in all, the Stullers invested around $1.5 million to keep the horse activity afloat.

Let’s brush up on S corporations. The “classic” corporations – like McDonald’s and Pfizer – are “C” corporations. These entities pay tax on their profits, and when they pay what is left over (that is, pay dividends) their shareholders are taxed again.  The government loves C corporations. It is the tax gift that keeps giving and giving.

However C corporations have lost favor among entrepreneurs for the same reason the government loves them. Generally speaking, entrepreneurs are wagering their own money – at least at the start. They are generally of different temperament from the professional managers that run the Fortune 500. Entrepreneurs have increasingly favored S corporations over the C, as the S allows one level of income tax rather than two. In fact, while S corporations file a tax return, they themselves do not pay federal income tax (except in unusual circumstances).  The S corporation income is instead reported by the shareholders, who combine it with their own W-2s and other personal income and then pay tax on their individual tax returns.

Back to the Stullers.

They put in $1.5 million over the years and took a tax deduction for the same $1.5 million.

Somewhere in there this caught the IRS’ attention.

The IRS wanted to know if the farm was a real business or just somebody’s version of collecting coins or baseball cards. The IRS doesn’t care if you have a hobby, but it gets testy when you try to deduct your hobby. The IRS wants your hobby to be paid for with after-tax money.

So the IRS went after the Stullers, arguing that their horse activity was a hobby. An expensive hobby, granted, but still a hobby.

There is a decision grid of sorts that the courts use to determine whether an activity is a business or a hobby. We won’t get into the nitty gritty of it here, other than to point out a few examples:

·        Has the activity ever shown a profit?

·        Is the profit anywhere near the amount of losses from the activity?

·        Have you sought professional advice, especially when the activity starting losing buckets of money?

·        Do you have big bucks somewhere else that benefits from a tax deduction from this activity?

It appears the Stullers were rocking high income, so they probably could use the deduction. Any profit from the activity was negligible, especially considering the cumulative losses. The Court was not amused when they argued that land appreciation might bail-out the activity.

The Court decided the Stullers had a hobby, meaning NO deduction for those losses. This also meant there was a big check going to the IRS.

Do you remember the Tennessee farm?

The Stullers rented the farm to the S corporation. The S corporation would have deducted the rent. The Stullers would have reported rental income. It was a wash.

Until the hobby loss.

The Stullers switched gears and argued that they should not be required to report the rental income. It was not fair. They did not get a deduction for it, so to tax it would be to tax phantom income. The IRS cannot tax phantom income, right?

And with that we have looped back to the Court’s quote from National Alfalfa Dehydrating & Milling Co. at the beginning of this blog.

Uh, yes, the Stullers had to report the rental income.

Why? An S corporation is different from its shareholders. Its income might ultimately be taxed on an individual return, but it is considered a separate tax entity. It can select accounting periods, for example, and choose and change accounting methods. A shareholder cannot override those decisions on his/her personal return. Granted, 99 times out of 100 a shareholder’s return will change if the S corporation itself changes. This however was that one time.

Perhaps had they used a single-member LLC, which the tax Code disregards and considers the same as its member, there might have been a different answer.

But that is not what the Stullers did. They now have to live with the consequences of that decision.

Romancing The Income

Let’s discuss Blagaich, an early 2016 decision from the Tax Court. This is a procedural decision within a larger case of whether cash and property transfers represent income. 

Blagaich was the girlfriend and in 2010 was 54 years old.

Burns was the boyfriend and in 2010 was 72 years old.

Their romance lasted from November 2009 until March 2011.

It appears that Burns was fairly well heeled, as he wired her $200,000, bought her a Corvette and wrote her several checks. These added up to $343,819.

He was sweet on her, and she on him. Neither wanted to marry, but Burns wanted some level of commitment. What to do …?

On November 29, 2010 they decided to enter into a written agreement. This would formalize their “respect, appreciation and affection for each other.” They would “respect each other and … continue to spend time with each other consistent with their past practice.” Both would “be faithful to each other and … refrain from engaging in intimate or other romantic relations with any other individual.”

The agreement required Burns to immediately pay Blagaich $400,000, because nothing says love like a check you can immediately take to the bank.

Surprisingly, the relationship went downhill soon after entering into the agreement.

On March 10, 2011 Blagaich moved out of Burn’s house.

The next day Burns sent her a notice of termination of the agreement.

That same month Burns also sued her for nullification of the agreement, as she had been involved with another man throughout the entire relationship. He wanted his Corvette, his diamond ring - all of it - returned.

Somewhere in here Burns must have met with his accountant, as he/she sent Blagaich a Form 1099-MISC for $743,819.

She did not report this amount as income. The IRS of course wanted to know why.

The IRS learned that she was being sued, so they decided to hold up until the Circuit Court heard the case.

The Circuit Court decided that:

·        The Corvette, ring and cash totaling $343,819 were gifts from him to her.

·        The $400,000 was different. She was paid that under a contract. Flubbing the contract, she now had to pay it back.

Burns had passed away by this time, but his estate sent Blagaich a revised Form 1099-MISC for $400,000.

With the Circuit Court case decided, the IRS moved in. They increased her income by $743,819, assessed taxes and a crate-load of penalties. She strongly disagreed, and the two are presently in Tax Court. Blagaich moved for summary adjudication, meaning she wanted the Tax Court to decide her way without going through a full trial.

QUESTION: Do you think she has income and, if so, in what amount?

Let’s begin with the $400,000.

The Circuit Court had decided that $400,000 was not a gift. It was paid pursuant to a contract for the performance of services, and the performance of services usually means income. Additionally, since the payment was set by contract and she violated the contract terms, she had to repay the $400,000.

She argued that she could not have income when she had to pay it back. In legal-speak, this is called “rescission.”

In the tax arena, rescission runs head-on into the “claim of right” doctrine. A claim of right means that you have income when you receive an increase in wealth without a corresponding obligation to repay or a restriction on your being able to spend. If it turns out later that you in fact have to repay, then tax law will allow you a deduction – but at that later date.

Within the claim of right doctrine there is a narrow exception IF you pay the money back by the end of the same year or enter into a binding contract by the end of the same year to repay. In that case you are allowed to exclude the income altogether.

Blagaich did not do this. She clearly did not pay the $400,000 back in the same year. She also did not enter in an agreement in 2010 to pay it back. In fact, she had no intention to pay it back until the Circuit Court told her to.

She did not meet that small exception to the claim-of-right doctrine. She had income. She will also have a deduction upon repayment.

OBSERVATION: This is a problem if one’s future income goes down. Say that she returns to a $40,000/year job. Sure, she can deduct $400,000, but she can only offset $40,000 of income and the taxes thereon. The balance is wasted. Practitioners sometimes see this result with athletes who retire, leaving their sport (and its outsized paychecks) behind. It may never be possible to get back all the taxes one paid in the earlier year.

Let’s go to the $343,819.

She argued that the Circuit Court already decided that the $343,819 was a gift. To go through this again is to relitigate – that is, a double jeopardy to her. In legal-speak this is called “collateral estoppel.”

The Court clarified that collateral estoppel precludes the same parties from relitigating issues previously decided in a court of competent jurisdiction.

It also pointed out that the IRS was not party to the Circuit Court case. The IRS is not relitigating. The IRS never litigated in the first place.

She argued that the IRS knew of the case, requested and received updates, pleadings and discovery documents. The IRS even held up the tax examination until the Circuit Court case was decided.

But that does not mean that the IRS was party to the case. The IRS was an observer, not a litigant. Collateral estoppel applies to the litigants. That said, collateral estoppel did not apply to the IRS.

Blagaich lost her request for summary, meaning that the case will now be heard by the Tax Court.

What does this tax guy think?

She has very much lost the argument on the $400,000. Most likely she will have to pay tax for 2010 and then take a deduction later when she repays the money. The problem – as we pointed out – is that unless she has at least $400,000 in income for that later year, she will never get back as much tax as she is going to pay for 2010. It is a flaw in the tax law, but that flaw has been there a long time.

On the other hand, she has a very good argument with the $343,819. The Court was correct that a technical issue disallowed it from granting summary. That does not however mean that the technical issue will carry the day in full trial. That Circuit Court decision will carry a great deal of evidentiary weight.

We will know the final answer when Blagaich v Commissioner goes to full trial.