Beer, Pepsi, A Cincinnati Family And The Estate Tax

I am reviewing a tax case involving estate taxes, generation-skipping taxes, a Cincinnati family, and a beer brand only recently brought back to the market. Let’s talk about it.

John F. Koons (Koons) owned shares that his father had bought during the 1930s in Burger Brewing Co., a Cincinnati brewer known for its Burger beer. The Cincinnati Reds broadcaster Waite Hoyt nicknamed a deck at Crosley Field (where the Reds then played) “Burgerville.” 

During the 1960s the company began bottling and distributing Pepsi soft drinks. In the 1970s it left the beer business altogether. The company changed its name to Central Investment Corp (CIC), and Koons was its largest shareholder.

In the late 1990s Koons got into litigation with PepsiCo. By 2004 PepsiCo suggested that the litigation could be resolved if CIC sold its soft drink business and left the Pepsi-Cola system. 

In July, 2004 Koons revised his will to leave the residue of his estate to a Revocable Trust.

In August, 2004 Koons set-up Central Investments LLC (CI LLC) to receive all the non-PepsiCo assets of CIC.   

In December, 2004 Koons and the Koons children executed a stock purchase agreement with PepsiCo. Koons owned 46.9% of the voting stock and 51.5% of the nonvoting stock of CIC.

The deal was sweet. PepsiCo paid $50 million to settle the lawsuit as well as $340 million, plus a working capital adjustment, for the shares of CIC.

There was a kicker in here though: the children’s agreement to sell their CIC shares was contingent on their also being redeemed from CI LLC. It appears that CI LLC was going to be professionally managed, and the children were being given an exit.

In January, 2005 CI LLC distributed approximately $100 million to Koons and the children.

By the end of January two of the four Koons children decided to accept the buyout offer.

In February, 2005 Koons amended the Revocable Trust. He removed the children, leaving only the grandchildren. He then contributed his interest in CI LLC to the Trust.

NOTE: A couple of things happened here. First, the trust is now a generation-skipping trust, as all the beneficiaries in the first generation have been removed. You may recall that there is a separate generation-skipping tax. Second, Koons’ interest in CI LLC went up when the two children agreed to the buyout. Why? Because he still owned the same number of shares, but the total shares outstanding would decrease pursuant to the redemption.      

Koons – who would soon own more than 50% of CI LLC - instructed the trustees to vote in favor of changes to CI LLC’s operating agreement. This prompted child number 2 – James B. Koons – to write a letter to his father. Son complained that the terms of the buyout “felt punitive” but thanked him for the “exit vehicle.” He told his dad that the children would “like to be gone.”

Sure enough, the remaining two children accepted the buyout.

On March 3, 2005 Koons died.

The buyouts were completed by April 30, 2005. The Trust now owned more than 70% of CI LLC.

And the Koons estate had taxes coming up.

CI LLC agreed to loan the Trust $10,750,000 to help pay the taxes. The note carried 9.5% interest, with the first payment deferred until 2024. The loan terms prohibited prepayment.

OBSERVATION: That’s odd.

The estate tax return showed a value over $117 million for the Trust.

The estate tax return also showed a liability for the CI LLC loan (including interest) of over $71 million.

And there you have the tax planning! This is known as a “Graegin” loan.

NOTE: Graegin was a 1988 case where the Court allowed an estate to borrow and pay interest to a corporation in which the decedent had been a significant shareholder.

Did it work for the Koons estate?

The IRS did not like a loan whose payments were delayed almost 20 years. The IRS also argued that administration expenses deductible against the estate are limited to expenses actually and necessarily incurred in the administration.  The key term here is “necessary.”

Expenditures not essential to the proper settlement of the estate, but incurred for the individual benefit of the heirs, legatees, or devisees, may not be taken as deductions.”

The estate argued that it had less than $20 million in cash to pay taxes totaling $26 million. It had to borrow.

You have to admit, the estate had a point.

The IRS fired back: the estate controlled the Trust. The Trust could force CI LLC to distribute cash. CI LLC was sitting on over $300 million.

The estate argued that it did not want to deplete CI LLC’s cash.

The Court wasn’t buying this argument. It pointed out that the estate depleted CI LLC’s cash by borrowing. What was the difference?

Oh, oh. There goes that $71 million deduction on the estate tax return.

It gets worse. The IRS challenged the value of the Trust on the estate tax return.  The Trust owned over 70% of CI LLC, so the real issue was how to value CI LLC.

The estate’s expert pointed out that the Trust owned 46.9% of CI LLC at the time of death. There would be no control premium, although there would be a marketability discount. The expert determined that CI LLC’s value for tax purposes should be discounted almost 32%.

The IRS expert came in at 7.5%. He pointed out that – at the time of death – it was reasonably possible that the redemptions of the four children would occur. This put the Trust’s ownership over 50%, the normal threshold for control.

Here is the Court:

The redemption offers were binding contracts by the time Koons died on March 3, 2005. CI LLC had made written offers to each of the children to redeem their interests in CI LLC by February 27, 2005. Once signed, the offer letters required the children to sell their interests ....

Any increase in the value of CI LLC would increase the generation-skipping tax to the Trust. 

Any increase in the value of the Trust would increase the estate tax to the estate.

The tax damage when all was said and done? Almost $59 million.

Given the dollars involved, the estate has almost no choice but to appeal. It does have difficult facts, however. From a tax planner’s perspective, it would have been preferable to keep the Trust from owning more than 50% of CI LLC. Too late for that however.

Does A Flight Attendant In Hong Kong Have Foreign Income?

I am going to put you on the spot. I will give you some facts and present a tax issue for you.

Yen-Ling is a U.S. citizen. She is an expat living in Hong Kong. She works international flights for an airline, and her flights include

• Hong Kong to/from San Francisco
• Hong Kong to/from Chicago
• Hong Kong to/from Ho Chi Minh City
• San Francisco to/from Nagoya

 What tax issues do you see?

·        Hong Kong is a red herring. As a U.S. citizen, she has to pay income taxes on her worldwide income.

·       She however does get some tax relief from the double taxation this would otherwise entail. She gets to offset her Hong Kong taxes against her otherwise payable U.S. income taxes. This is the “foreign tax credit.”

 You are doing well. Anything else?

·        I recall a “foreign income” exclusion in the tax code. I am a bit fuzzy on it, though.

Good catch. A U.S. citizen who both lives and works overseas can exclude a certain amount of his/her salary from U.S. tax. This amount is not chump-change. For 2013, for example, the maximum foreign income exclusion is $97,600.

Is all of her income foreign? She does live in Hong Kong.

·       Wait, she comes into and out of the U.S. on a regular basis. Some of her income has to be U.S. source.

You are right. How to do you propose to allocate it?

·        Hopefully the airline sent her something – maybe a breakdown of her flight and service hours.

Let’s say they do and it looks something like this:

• Hours in U.S.
• Hours in Vietnam
• Hours in Japan
• Hours in Hong Kong
• Hours in international air space

 Her total hours are 1,960 hours. How do you propose to calculate this?

 ·        I propose to divide her hours in the U.S. into 1,960 total hours.

Seems reasonable. But ...

... you would be wrong. Not surprisingly, there has been litigation on this.

The Code defines "foreign earned income” as “the amount received by such individual from sources within a foreign country.”

·        So? She did not earn it within the U.S., so how can it be anything other than “foreign?”

Take a look at the wording in the following Regulation:

• The term ‘foreign country’ when used in a geographical sense includes any territory under the sovereignty of a government other than that of the United States.”

Did you pick up on the tax hook?

 ·        You mean the word “sovereignty?”

That’s it. Under whose sovereignty is international airspace?

·        No one’s. That is why it is international.

Is her time in international airspace considered time in a “foreign country?”

·        That is ridiculous. According to this reasoning, an American on the moon would have all his/her income considered U.S. source.

You are right that this is ridiculous, but an American living (and working) on the moon would have U.S. source income. He/she would not have a foreign income exclusion, as he/she would not have foreign income.

·        Who dreamed this up?

To some extent, it is an unfortunate by-product of the U.S. worldwide tax system. It borders on the intellectually incoherent, which is why virtually all other advanced nations eschew it in favor of a territorial tax system.

·        How did it turn out for the flight attendant?

She got hosed. You can read about it at Rogers v Commissioner.

·        I could but I won’t.

A Rough Rider’s Eagle And The Estate Tax

What is the value of something that you cannot sell?

Someone walked face-first into this issue with the IRS.

We are talking about Ileana Sonnabend, an avid art collector and a very wealthy woman. She died in 2007, leaving an art collection that included works by Andy Warhol, Jasper Johns and Robert Rauschenberg. Her estate was in the billion-dollar range, prompting her executors to sell pieces from the collection to pay federal and New York estate taxes. Those taxes approached $500 million.

There was a troublesome piece in the collection – Rauschenberg’s “Canyon.” Rauschenberg was a post – World War II American artist, and some of his work is described as “combine.” This means that the work includes different materials, such as Picasso mixing sand into his paints. The issue with “Canyon” is that it includes a stuffed bald eagle.

There are federal laws – the 1918 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the 1940 Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act – that says that one cannot traffic in bald eagles, even a stuffed one.

Ms Sonnabend purchased “Canyon” in 1959, well after the 1940 law. In 1981 (yes, 22 years later) the Department of Fish and Wildlife contacted her to inform her that her ownership violated federal laws. She was able to obtain a permit to retain “Canyon” and loan it to museums, but she was forbidden to sell it. She got the permit because Rauschenberg – who made the piece – provided a written statement that the bald eagle had been killed and stuffed by one of Teddy Roosevelt’s Rough Riders, well before 1940.

The government decreed that it must be informed of “Canyon’s” location at all times. If the artwork left the country for an exhibition, it would have to apply for a visa.

Seriously?

Ms Sonnabend died. The executors had to put a value on “Canyon” for the estate tax return.

How do you value art for an estate? You get an appraisal. The estate got an appraisal on “Canyon” from Christie’s, the auction house. Their appraisal? It was worth zero – nada, zippo, subtract one from one. One cannot sell “Canyon” without going to jail, with greatly cuts into its marketability. Two other auction houses gave the same appraisal, so the estate filed an estate tax return showing a zero value for “Canyon.”

The IRS of course saw otherwise. In 2011 the IRS sent the estate a report proposing a value of $15 million for “Canyon.” The estate disagreed and refused to pay. The IRS – in an example of why people hate the IRS – issued a formal Notice of Deficiency upping the value to $65 million.

NOTE: It is not as though your local IRS revenue agent came up with this value. This is specialized work. The IRS has an Art Advisory Panel that helps with these cases. The most that a Rauschenberg has ever received at auction however is $14.6 million, which seriously calls their $65 million figure into question.

Just to put sand in the paint, the IRS levied a special “understatement” penalty of 40%.

So how did the bright bulbs on the Art Advisory Panel come up with the $65 million figure? One of them, Joseph Bothwell, said that there:

... could be a market for the work. For example, a reclusive billionaire in China might want to buy it and hide it.”

Huh? An illegal sale to a “reclusive billionaire in China” is not considered an accepted valuation technique.

Another bulb, Stephanie Barron, further explained that the Panel evaluated “Canyon” without reference to any restrictive laws.

“The ruling about the eagle is not something the Art Advisory Panel considered,”’ she explained.

What? The most important factor in “Canyon’s” valuation and you did not consider it?

We all just cringed at the idea that this had zero value. It just didn’t make any sense,” she continued.   

Good grief.

Let’s have a brief review of the facts for Stephanie Barron. Ms Sonnabend owned an item. The government did not approve of her owning the item. This item could be anything. Let’s say – for example - that it is a Big Gulp in Times Square. The government does not want you to have it and wants to take it from you. The government could call in a drone, I suppose, but it instead shows restraint. The government cleverly takes the item from Ms Sonnabend without actually taking it from her possession. Is that a fair summary of what happened here?

OBSERVATION: One could argue that Ms Sonnabend suffered a theft loss.

The executors had a decision to make. If they didn’t pay the taxes, they would face IRS collections action. If they sold “Canyon” to raise the money to pay the taxes, they would go to prison for violating federal law.

How did this turn out? This month the IRS dropped its claim against the estate of Ileana Sonnabend over “Canyon.” The estate donated the work to the New York Museum of Modern Art. The estate agreed not to claim a tax deduction for the donation, as it previously argued that the work had no value.

This was not the IRS’ finest effort.