A Representative’s Tax Proposal for Credit Card Debt Forgivenesss

I am reading that Representative Scott Peters (D-CA) has proposed a change to the tax Code allowing forgiveness of credit card balances to be nontaxable.

I have two questions for you:

First, what is it with politicians from California?

Second, did you know that credit card forgiveness was taxable?

The tax Code is based on the concept of an increase in net wealth. The concept is simple, although it causes difficulty in application. Let’s look at the following example:

           

Monday morning you have to your name					400
Tuesday the credit card company forgave					125
Friday you got paid					1,000
You put gas in your car					(60)
You bought lunch all week					(40)
Friday afternoon you have to your name					1,425

You went from being worth $400 to being worth $1,425. Does that mean that you have $1,025 of income to report to the tax man? No, but you are thinking along the correct lines. Not every addition in our example is taxable, and not every subtraction is deductible. Let’s look at each.

•  $125 of your credit card balance was forgiven.

Code section 108 addresses the taxability when somebody forgives your debt. There are five subcategories:

·        108(a)(1)(A) applies in bankruptcy

·        108(a)(1)(B) applies if you are insolvent

·        108(a)(1)(C) applies to farm debt

·        108(a)(1)(D) applies to certain business debt

·        108(a)(1)(E) applies to your mortgage

I am not seeing an exception for credit cards, so for the time being it looks like the $125 will be income. I am assuming that you are not insolvent (meaning that you owe more than you are worth) or in bankruptcy (which sometimes follows owing more than you are worth).

• Your paycheck

That one is obvious. We should be thankful the government does not just decide to have all paychecks sent to them, allowing them to decide how much to return to us.

•  Buying gas and a week’s worth of lunches

Code section 262 disallows tax deductions for personal, living and family expenses. Granted, another Code section may override and allow a deduction for specific expenses (such as medical), but in general one cannot deduct groceries, utilities, rent and similar day-to-day-living expenses.

I would say that you have taxable income of $125 plus $1,000 = $1,125.

The credit card is a subset of “forgiveness of indebtedness” taxation. The seminal case is Kirby Lumber, which was decided by the Supreme Court back in 1931. Kirby Lumber had previously issued bonds of over $12 million. They later bought back the bonds for $137,000 less. The question before the Court was whether that $137,000 represented taxable income. It does seem a bit odd that someone can have income just from transacting in debt, but if you think of it as accession to wealth the tax reasoning becomes clearer. At the end of the day Kirby Lumber was worth $137,000 more (as it had less net debt), and the government wanted its cut.

Back to Representative Sun-Dance-Whispered-By-Hidden-Shadow, or whatever he is called back in his native land.

He is proposing that forgiveness of credit cards be excluded from income.

However, the most that a person could exclude from lifetime income is capped at $2,500.

Say that you excluded $1,000 in 2014. Under his proposal, the most you could exclude – over the rest of your life – is another $1,500. You cannot exclude more than $2,500 over your lifetime.

My first thought is that $2,500 is not enough to move the needle, if someone really got into credit card and personal debt problems. I have known and heard of people who have run up a mortgage-level balance on their credit cards.

My second thought is whether this is a wise use of the public purse. Congress provided a mortgage interest deduction because it wanted to increase home ownership. It provided a charitable deduction to promote societal benevolence and reduce strain on the public safety net. What is Congress saying by providing an exclusion for not repaying credit card debt?

And you can see how bad tax law happens. There is no theory of wealth creation, case precedence or administrative practicality at play with this proposal. An elected bludger panders, laws are passed without being read and the tax system (both the IRS and advisors) is left to making sense out of nonsense.    
  

Is It A Second Home Or A Rental?

There are certain tax issues that seem to repeat in practice.

A client asked me how we handled his rental this year.  The answer was that we had stopped treating it as a rental in 2013. He was no longer renting the property. It needed repairs, and he was saving money to fix it up. He intended to then let his son live there.

There comes a point – if one does not rent – that it is no longer a rental. It may have been a rental once, in the same capacity that we once played football or ran track in high school. We did but no longer do. We are no longer athletes. We certainly are no longer young.

Let’s tweak this a bit: when does a property first start as a rental?

Obviously, when you first rent it.

What if you can’t rent it?

You would answer that you would not have bought a property that you couldn’t rent, so the scenario doesn’t make sense. It is the tax equivalent of the Kobayashi Maru.

What if you owned the property as a non-rental but decided to convert it to a rental? You didn’t actually rent it, unfortunately, but in your mind you had converted it to a rental.

But is it a rental or is it not?

Granted, the passive loss rules have put a dampener on this tax issue, as one is allowed to deduct passive losses only to the extent of passive income. There is a break for taxpayers with income less than $150 thousand, but it is quite likely that someone with this tax issue has income beyond that range. There is still a tax bang when you sell the property, though, regardless of your income.

The Redisch case takes us to Florida. We are talking about second homes.

The Redisches are Michigan residents. They bought land in a private oceanfront community (Hammock Dunes) in Palm Coast, Florida. They rented an oceanfront condo while meeting with an architect for ideas for building on the land. They decided they liked oceanfront more than non-oceanfront, so they sold the land in 2003 and bought an oceanfront condo in 2004. It must have been a very nice condo, as it cost $875,000.

The condo was their second home, and they often spent time there with their daughter.

Their daughter passed away tragically in 2006.

The Redisches could not stay at the condo any more. The memories were too painful.

In 2008 they decided to sell the condo. You may remember that 2008 was a very bad year for real estate. They decided instead to rent the property for a while and allow the market to recover.

They contacted a realtor associated with Hammock Dunes to market the rental. Hammock Dunes itself was still under development, so any potential sale of the condo would have been competing with new construction. Renting made sense.

The Redisches hired a realty company. They figured they had gotten an edge, as most of the company realtors lived in Hammock Dunes themselves. The company operated an information center there, which would help to market their rental. The realty company even used the condo as a model, although they did not pay the Redisches for such use. They did however persuade the Redisches to change one of the bedrooms to a child’s room. There was hope that someone with a child (or, more likely, a grandchild) would be interested.

The Redisches received a couple of inquiries. One person wanted to rent the property for two months, but the condo association did not permit short-term rentals. The other person had a big dog, which also ran afoul of condo restrictions.

It was now a year later and the rental effort was going nowhere. Other owners in Hammock Dunes were losing their properties to foreclosure. The Redisches were becoming keenly concerned with selling the property while there was still something to sell. They switched realty companies. They had the property reappraised. They dropped to price to $725,000 and finally sold the condo in December 2010.

They claimed the condo as a rental on their 2009 and 2010 tax returns. They reported a long-term capital loss on the sale of the property. 

OBSERVATION: Which is incorrect. If the property was a rental, the loss would be a Section 1231 transaction, reportable as an ordinary loss on the tax return. If the property was a second home, then any loss would be disallowed.

And the IRS looked at their 2009 and 2010 tax returns.

The tax issue was whether the property was a rental.

What do you think: did the Redisches do enough to convert the property to a rental?

One the one hand, they had a valid non-tax reason to sell the property. There was a business-like reason to withdraw it from the market and rent it instead. They hired experts to help with the rental. They transacted with potential renters, but condo restrictions disallowed those specific rentals. What more could they do, as they themselves were living in Michigan?

On the other hand, the IRS wondered why they did not try harder. After all, if one’s trade or business is renting real property, then one goes to great lengths to, you know, rent real property. The IRS wanted to see effort as though the Redisches’ next meal depended on it.

Here is the Court:

After considering all the facts and circumstances, we find that the […] property was not converted to a rental property. The Redisches used the property for four years before abandoning personal use of it …. Although Mr. Redisch testified that he signed a one-year agreement with a realty company […], he did not provide any other evidence of such an agreement. Even if the Redisches had produced the contract, Mr. Redisch stated that the efforts of the realty company to rent out the Porto Mar property were limited to featuring it in a portfolio kept in the company’s office and telling prospective buyers that it was available when showing it as a model. 

It is unsurprising that this minimal effort yielded only minimal interest.”

Ouch.

The Court decided that the Redisches were not acting in a business appropriate manner, if their business was that of renting real property. The Court unfortunately did not indicate what they could have done that would have persuaded it otherwise. Clearly, just hoping that a renter would appear was not sufficient.

My Hypothetical Family Foundation

I deeply doubt that I will ever fund a private foundation. However, all things are possible until they are not, so it may yet happen.

And private foundations have been in the news recently, as you know.

What are these things, and how are they used?

Let us start with what a private foundation is.

First, the terms “private foundation” and “family foundation” are often interchanged.  If it is private enough, the only donors to the foundation are one family.

Second, it is a type of tax-exempt. It can accept tax-deductible donations, but the overall limit on the deduction is lower than for donations to a 501(c)(3).  It is not completely tax-exempt, however, as it does have to pay a 2% tax annually. I suspect however most of us would leap at an opportunity to pay a 2% tax.  Depending on what the foundation does, it may be possible to reduce that tax further to just 1%.

Third, what is the word “private” doing in there?

That “private” is the big difference from a (c)(3).

Generally speaking, a private foundation does not even pretend that it is broadly supported. To contrast, a (c)(3) has to show on its Form 990 that it is publicly-supported, meaning that it receives donations from a large number of people. Calling it a private – or family - foundation clues you that it is disproportionately funded by one family. When I hit the lottery there will be a Hamilton Family Foundation, funded by one family – mine.

There are two key reasons that someone would establish a private foundation:

(1)  one has accumulated wealth and wants to give back through philanthropy; and

(2)  to provide income for someone.

The first reason is quite common, and the private foundation has a lot to commend it. Let’s say that I sign an NFL contract and receive a $25 million signing bonus. That is an excellent year to fund the Hamilton Family Foundation, as (i) I have the cash and (ii) I could use the tax deduction. An additional attractive feature is that I could fund the foundation in one year but spread the charitable distributions over many years. The tax Code requires a foundation to distribute a minimum amount annually, generally defined as 5% of assets. Assuming no rate of return on investments, I could keep the Hamilton Family Foundation functioning for 20 years off that one-time infusion.

I have had clients that use a foundation as a focal point for family giving. It allows multiple generations to come together and decide on causes and charities, and it helps to instill a spirit of giving among the younger family members.

The second reason is to provide an income stream to someone, such as an unemployable family member or friends and associates that one wants to reward.  An easy enough way to do so is to put them on the Board – and then pay trustee fees. This is more the province of the larger foundations, as it is unlikely that a foundation with $2 million or $3 million in investments could sustain such payouts. I myself would not be interested in providing an income stream, but I might be interested in a foundation that provided college grants to students who are residents of Kentucky, attend the University of Tennessee and have the last name "Hamilton."

The ongoing issue with private foundations is the outsized influence of one family on a tax-favored entity. Congress has tried over the years to tighten the rules, resulting in a bewildering thicket of rules:

(1) There is a tax if the foundation owns 20% or more of a business. Congress does not want foundations running a business.

(2) The foundation managers have to exercise common sense and business prudence when selecting investments.  Stray too far and there is a penalty on investments which “jeopardize” the charitable purpose.

Note the reference to the charitable purpose. Let’s say the Romanov Foundation’s purpose is to promote small business in economically disadvantaged areas. Let’s say it made a high-risk loan to business-people interested in opening a shopping center in such an area. Most likely, that loan would not jeopardize its exempt purpose, whereas the same loan by the Hamilton Family Foundation would. 

(3) Generally speaking, foundations that make grants to individuals must seek advance approval from the IRS and agree to maintain detailed records including recipient names, addresses, manner of selection, relationship with foundation insiders and so forth. As a consequence, it is common for foundations to not make contributions to a payee who is not itself a 501(c)(3). Apparently Congress realized that - if it did not impose this restriction - someone would claim a charitable deduction for sending his/her kids through college. 

(4) Certain transactions between the foundation and disqualified persons are prohibited. Prohibited transactions include the sale or leasing of property, the loaning of money, the use of foundation property (if unrelated to carrying out the exempt purpose of the foundation), paying excessive compensation or reimbursing unreasonable or unnecessary expenses.

Who are disqualified persons? The group would include officers, directors, foundation managers (a term of art in this area), substantial contributors and their families. I would be a disqualified person to the Hamilton Family Foundation, for example, as I would be a substantial contributor. 

Would prohibited transactions include the travel and entourage expenses of an ex-President and politico spouse receiving speaking and appearance fees not otherwise payable to their foundation?  Tax law is ... elastic on this point. I am thinking of including a tax education purpose for the Hamilton Family Foundation so I can, you know, travel the world researching blog topics and have my expenses paid directly or otherwise reimbursed to me.

For many years the IRS enforced compliance by wielding the threat of terminating the tax-favored status. It did not work well, frankly, as the IRS was hesitant to sign a death sentence unless the foundation had pushed the matter beyond all recognizable limits.

Congress then expanded the panoply of tax penalties applicable to tax-exempts, including both (c)(3)’s and private foundations. These penalties have come to be known as the “intermediate” sanctions, as they stop short of the death sentence. Penalties can be assessed against both the foundation and its officers or managers. There can even be a second round of penalties if the foundation does not correct the error within a reasonable period of time. Some of these penalties can reach 200% and are not to be taken lightly.

There is wide variation in the size of private foundations, by the way. Our hypothetical Hamilton Family Foundation would be funded with a few million dollars. Contrast that with the Bill and Melinda Gates Foundation, with net assets over $40 billion. It is an aircraft carrier in the marina of foundations, yet it is considered "private" because of its disproportionate funding by one or a limited number of families.