Getting A Carr Out Of New York

Did you know that New York is likely to audit you if you move away from the state? These “residency audits” are infamous, as the outcome is rarely in doubt. They are the state tax equivalent of World Wrestling Entertainment.

I have never lived in a state that would not allow me to leave. There is something about such behavior that is highly disturbing.

I am reading Patrick Carr’s request for redetermination with the New York Division of Tax Appeals.

Carr is an attorney who was admitted to the New York Bar in 1964. He was later admitted to the New Jersey Bar. He followed the traditional New York migration pattern, and by 2007 he was living in Sarasota. He was retired, so he did not bother to move his law license to Florida.

He got involved with a case. Since he didn’t have a Florida license, the court allowed him “pro hac vice” status, literally meaning “this time only.” The court allowed him – as an out-of-state lawyer – to appear in court for a specific trial.

The case went on for a while, and he had legal fee income for 2007, 2008 and 2009. 

He reported the income on his federal return as self-employment income. There is no Florida individual income tax.

Wouldn’t you know that he got pulled for a residency audit?

New York conceded that he had successfully left New York.

That should have been the end of the matter, but …

New York still wanted its taxes.

The taxpayer received a large amount of money in tax year 2007 from a case he litigated in Florida. Schedule C income for 2008 and 2009 were relatively smaller compared to 2007. The taxpayer stated that all of his schedule C income from legal services was sourced to the state of Florida.”

Let a tax pro translate the above:

We want the money.

Back to New York: 

However, the taxpayer is not licensed to practice law in the State of Florida.”

Tax pro:                  

Sounds like a Florida problem.

New York:

It was determined that he was admitted as counsel pro hac vice in the Circuit Court of the 12^th Judicial Circuit in Sarasota County, Florida. This means that he was given special permission to help litigate this particular case even though you are not licensed to practice law in the state of Florida.”

Tax pro:

He received permission from the Court. Are there any other issues?

New York:

Therefore, all of your income is subject to New York income tax, since your income was attributable to a profession carried out in New York State….”

Tax pro:

By "carried out in New York State," do you mean Sarasota?

New York admitted he never did any of the work in New York, and also admitted that he was not a resident of New York.

Tax pro:

This was productive. Stay in touch.

New York nonetheless sent him a tax bill for $68 thousand, plus interest. They reasoned that his New York law license was enough to make him taxable in New York.

Tax pro:

Why is New York dissing New Jersey? Carr had a New Jersey license as well as a New York license. Why don’t you make it 50% to keep it fair?

New York:

He used to live in New York.

Tax pro: 

He used to go to college. Why don't you bill him for tuition also?

You already know this wound up in Court.

And the Court pointed out the obvious:

·        Carr did not have an office in New York

·        Carr did not practice in New York

·        Carr had an office or other place of practice outside New York

·        Carr had a license outside New York

·        He was authorized to practice in Florida. In fact, that is what pro hac vice means

·        Holding a New York license is not the same as carrying on a profession in New York

The Court told New York to go away.

What upsets me about state tax behavior like this is the cost and stress imposed upon the individual. I can see that Carr represented himself (“pro se”) in this matter, but he is an attorney. Most people do not have the training and likely would not represent themselves. They would have to hire a tax pro to fend-off a reckless challenge by New York or another state. Even if they win, they lose – after they pay the professional fees.

Phone Call About The Statute Of Limitations

Recently I received a call from another CPA. 

He is representing in a difficult tax audit, and the IRS revenue agent has requested that the client extend the statute of limitations by six months. The statute has already been extended to February, 2016, so this extension is the IRS’ second time to the well. The client was not that thrilled about the first extension, so the conversation about a second should be entertaining.

This however gives us a chance to talk about the statute of limitations.

Did you know that there are two statutes of limitations?

Let’s start with the one commonly known: the 3-year statute on assessment.

You file your personal return on April 15, 2015. The IRS has three years from the date they receive the return to assess you. Assess means they formally record a receivable from you, much like a used-car lot would. Normally – and for most of us – the IRS recording receipt by them of our tax return is the same as being assessed. You file, you pay whatever taxes are due, the IRS records all of the above and the matter is done.    

Let’s introduce some flutter into the system: you are selected for audit.

They audit you in March, 2017. What should have been an uneventful audit turns complicated, and the audit drags on and on. The IRS knows that they have until April, 2018 on the original statute (that is, April 15, 2015 plus 3 years), so they ask you to extend the statute.

Let’s say you extend for six months. The IRS now has until October 15, 2018 to assess (April 15 plus six months). It buys them (and you) time to finish the audit with some normalcy.

The audit concludes and you owe them $10 thousand. They will send you a notice of the audit adjustment and taxes due. If you ignore the first notice, the IRS will keep sending notices of increasing urgency. If you ignore those, the IRS will eventually send a Statutory Notice of Deficiency, also known as a SNOD or 90-day letter.

That SNOD means the IRS is getting ready to assess. You have 90 days to appeal to the Tax Court. If you do not appeal, the IRS formally assesses you the $10 thousand.

And there is the launch for the second statute of limitations: the statute on collections. The IRS will have 10 years from the date of assessment to collect the $10 thousand from you.

So you have two statutes of limitation: one to assess and another to collect. If they both go to the limit, the IRS can be chasing you for longer than your kid will be in grade and high school.

What was I discussing with my CPA friend? 

• What if his client does not (further) extend the statute?

Well, let’s observe the obvious: his client would provoke the bear. The bear will want to strike back. The way it is done – normally – is for the bear to bill you immediately for the maximum tax and penalty under audit. They will spot you no issues, cut you no slack. They will go through the notice sequence as quickly as possible, as they want to get to that SNOD. Once the IRS issues the SNOD, the statute of limitations is tolled, meaning that it is interrupted. The IRS will then not worry about running out of time - if only it can get to that SNOD.

It is late August as I write this. The statute has already been extended to February. What are the odds the IRS machinery will work in the time remaining?

And there you have a conversation between two CPAs.

I myself would not provoke the bear, especially in a case where more than one tax year is involved. I view it as climbing a tree to get away from a bear. It appears brilliant until the bear begins climbing after you. 

I suspect my friend’s client has a different temperament. I am looking forward to see how this story turns out.

Difference Between An Advance And A Loan

Do you remember when the Washington Redskins and the Miami Dolphins went to the Super Bowl? It was 1983, and I was living in Florida at the time. I am pretty sure I was rooting for the Florida team. The Redskins had a hard-charging fullback named John Riggins. His nickname was “Diesel” and he scored a touchdown on a forty-something yard run. Blocking for him was (among others) George Starke, an offensive tackle. The Washington offensive linemen, the ones who block for the quarterback and running back, were known as The Hogs.

George Starke is second from the left.

George was very much on the backside of his career at that point. He shortly thereafter left football and opened a car dealership in Maryland. He couldn’t help but notice that the dealership had difficulty recruiting service technicians. He helped establish a technical school to educate and train technicians. He also hoped that - by providing a realistic hope for a better life – the school would also help with the poverty and violence in the area.

He eventually sold the dealership and cofounded the Excel Institute, a nonprofit program that provided a two-year reading, writing, arithmetic and technical skills curriculum. The program was free of charge, but one had to commit.

Starke received a salary and housing allowance, as well as a credit card. He would charge business and personal expenses on the card. The personal charges were segregated on the books and records. George discontinued any personal charges in 2006, and from 2007 onward the only activity relating to the credit card was a payroll deduction to repay the balance.

There was a change in the Board, and Starke did not like the new direction of things. He stopped fundraising. He left the Excel Institute altogether in 2010.

Excel put the remaining balance due from George of $83,698 on a Form 1099, sent a copy to George, a second to the IRS and figured that was that.

George did not include the $83 grand on his individual tax return, however.

The IRS noticed and insisted that George do so. George said no.

And off to Tax Court they went.

Before proceeding, tell me: do you think George has a prayer?

As you know, forgiveness of a loan triggers income. The tax issue is whether these monies were ever a loan.

Your first thought is: of course they were! Heck, he was paying it back, wasn’t he?

Let’s walk through this.

Just because someone gives you money does not mean that there exists a loan. A loan implies that both sides anticipate the monies will be repaid. It would also be swell if there were some attention to the basic formalities, like perhaps a loan agreement and repayment terms.

And – just to dream – maybe interest could be charged on the whole affair.

There was no loan agreement. Excel itself gave mixed messages to the Court on whether it thought the monies were a loan. George told the Court that he never had any intention of paying back the money, and that he thought the payroll deductions were for health insurance or something like that.

If not a loan, then what were the monies to George?

They were advances, akin to nonrecoverable draws.

Advances are more easily understood in a draw-against-commission environment. Draws are intended to provide some predictable cash flow to the salesperson. Say that a salesperson receives commissions, and against the commissions is a $5,000 monthly draw. There are two types of draws - recoverable and nonrecoverable. A nonrecoverable draw does not have to be paid back should a saleperson fail to meet quota. A recoverable draw does have to be paid back. Granted, a salesperson who fails on a continuous basis to meet quota would soon be unemployed, but that is a different conversation.  For our purposes, the key is that a nonrecoverable draw represents income upon receipt.

Back to our courtroom drama.

The IRS pulled his 2010 tax year.

George received no advances in the 2010 tax year.

George last received advances in 2006.

There was nothing to tax in 2010 because George received no monies in 2010.

The IRS should have pursued his 2006 tax year. They did not, nor could they under the statute of limitations.

The Court dismissed the case. George won. The IRS got embarrassed.

I am curious why the IRS even bothered. The only thing I can figure is that they were hoping for a miracle play. Maybe like John Riggins running that football for a touchdown in Super Bowl XVII with George Starke blocking for him.