New Tax On Colleges

I read that Harvard estimates that a change from the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will cost approximately $38 million.

Harvard is referring to the “endowment tax” on colleges and universities.

Have you heard about this?

Let us set up the issue by discussing the taxation of private foundations.

The “best” type of charity (at least tax-wise) is the 501(c)(3). These are the March of Dimes and United Ways, and they are publicly-supported by a broad group of interested donors. In general, this means a large number of individually modest donations. Mind you, there can be an outsized donation (or several), but there are mathematical tests to restrict a limited number of donors from providing a disproportionate amount of the charity’s support.

Then we get to private foundations. In general, this means that a limited number of donors provide a disproportionate amount of support. Say that CTG comes into big bucks and sets up the CTG Family Foundation. There is little question that one donor provided a lopsided amount of donations: that donor would be me. In its classic version, I would be the only one funding the CTG Family Foundation.

There can be issues when a foundation and a person are essentially alter egos, and the Code provides serious penalties should that someone forget the difference. Foundations have enhanced information reporting requirements, and they also pay a 2% income tax on their net investment income. The 2% tax is supposedly to pay for the increased IRS attention given foundations compared to publicly-supported charities.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act created a new tax – the 1.4% tax on endowment income – and it targets an unexpected group: colleges and universities that enroll at least 500 tuition-paying students and have endowment assets of at least $500,000 per student.

Let me think this through. I went to graduate school at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Its student body is approximately 30,000. UMC would need an endowment of at least $15 billion to come within reach of this tax.

I have two immediate thoughts:

(1)  Tax practitioners commonly refer to the 2% tax on foundations as inconsequential, because … well, it is. My fee might be more than the tax; and

(2)  I am having a difficult time getting worked up over somebody who has $15 billion in the bank.

The endowment tax is designed to hit a minimal number of colleges and universities – probably less than 50 in total. It is expected to provide approximately $200 million in new taxes annually, not an insignificant sum but not budget-balancing either. As a consequence, there has been speculation as to its provenance and purpose.

With this Congress has again introduced brain-numbing complexity to the tax Code. For example, the tax is supposed to exclude endowment funds used to carry-on the school’s tax-exempt purpose.  Folks, it does not take 30-plus years of tax practice to argue that everything a school does furthers its tax-exempt purpose, meaning there is nothing left to tax. Clearly that is not the intent of the law, and tax practitioners are breathlessly awaiting the IRS to provide near-Torahic definitions of terms in this area.  

The criticism of the tax has already begun. Here is Harvard referring to its $40 billion endowment:

“We remain opposed to this damaging and unprecedented tax that will not only reduce resources available to colleges and universities to promote excellence in teaching and to sustain innovative research…”

Breathe deeply there, Winchester. Explain again why any school with $40 billion in investments even charges tuition.

Which brings us to Berea College in central Kentucky, south of Lexington. The school has an endowment of approximately $700,000 per student, so it meets the first requirement of the tax. The initial draft of the tax bill would have pulled Berea into its dragnet, but there was bipartisan agreement that the second requirement refer to “tuition-paying” students.

So what?

Berea College does not charge tuition.

The Gig Economy

Say that I retire. Perhaps my wife wins the lottery or marries well.

I get bored. Perhaps I would like a little running-around money. Maybe I flat-out need extra money.

I find a website that connects experienced tax practitioners to people needing tax services. There might be specializations available: as a practitioner I might accept corporate or passthrough work, for example, but not individual tax returns. I could work as much or as little as I want. I might work Friday and Saturday afternoons, for example, but not accept work on weekdays. I could turn down or fire clients. I could take time off without fear of dismissal.

There would have to be rules, of course. Life is a collection of rules. I might have to provide my state license to substantiate my credentials. I might have to post an E&O policy. It seems reasonable to expect the website to impose standards, such as for professional conduct, client communications, timeliness of service and so on

How would I get paid?

I am thinking that I would bill through the website. An advantage is that the website can devote more resources than I care to provide, making the arrangement a win-win-win for all parties involved. The website would collect from the client and then electronically deposit to my bank account.

Here is my question: is the website my employer?

Don’t scoff. We are talking the gig economy.

The issue has gained notoriety as states – New Jersey and California come to mind – have gone after companies like Uber and Lyft. From these states’ perspective, the issue is simple: if there is more than a de minimis interdependence between the service recipient and provider, then there must be an employment relationship between the two. Employment of course means FICA withholding, income tax withholding, unemployment insurance, disability insurance (in some cases), workers compensation and so on.

Let us be honest: employment status is Christmas day for some states. They would deem your garden statue an employee if they could wring a dollar out of you by doing so.

New Jersey recently hit Uber with a tax bill for $650 million, for example.

The employee-independent contractor issue is a BIG deal.

What in the world is the difference between an employee and an independent contractor?

People have been working on this question for a long time. The IRS has posited that employment means control – of the employer over the employee – and also that control travels on a spectrum. As one moves to the one end of the spectrum, it becomes increasingly likely that an employer-employee relationship exists.

The IRS looks at three broad categories:

(1)  Behavioral control

(2)  Financial control

(3)  Relationship of the parties

The IRS then looks at factors (sometimes called the 20 factors) through the lens of the above categories.

·        Can the service recipient tell you what, where, when and how to do something?

·        Is the service recipient the only recipient of the provider’s services?

·        Is the service relationship continuing?

Answer yes to those three factors and you sound a lot like an employee.

Problem is the easy issues exist only in a classroom or at seminar. In the real world, it is much more likely that you will find a mix of yes and no. In that event, how may “yes” answers will mean employee status? How many “no” answers will indicate contractor status?

Answer: no one knows.

Some states have taken a different approach, using what is called an “ABC” test. There was a significant case (Dynamex) in California. It interpreted the ABC test as follows:

(1)  The service provider is free from the direction and control of the service recipient in connection with the performance of the work.

(2)  The service provider performs work outside the usual course of the service recipient’s business.

(3)  The service provider is customarily engaged in the independent performance of the services provided.

I get the first one, but I point out that it is rarely all or nothing. If we here at CTG Command bring on a contractor CPA – say for the busy season or to collaborate on a tax area near the periphery of our experience – we would still have expectations. For example,

·        our office hours are XXX

·        reviewer turnaround times to tax preparers are XXX

·        responses to client calls are to occur with XXX hours or less

·        responses to me are to occur within X hours or less

·        drop-dead due dates are XXX

How many of these can we have before we fail the A in the ABC test?

Let’s look at B.

We are a CPA firm. Odds are we are interested in experienced CPAs. It is quite unlikely that we will have need of a master plumber or stonemason.

Have we automatically failed the B in the ABC test?

And what does C even mean?

I am a 30+ year tax CPA. I am a specialist and have been for many years. I would say that I am “customarily engaged” in tax practice. Do I have “independent performance,” however?

If I interpret this test to mean that I have more than one client, it somewhat makes sense, although there are still issues. For example, upon semi-retirement, I would like to be “of counsel” to a CPA firm. I have no intention of working every day, or of being there endless hours during the busy season. No, what I am thinking is that the firm would call me for specialized work – more complex tax issues, perhaps some tax representation. It would provide a mental challenge but not become a burden to me.

Would I do this for more than one firm?

Doubt it. I point to that “burden” thing.

Have I failed the C test?

I am still thinking through the issues involved in this area.

Including non-tax issues.

If I take an Uber and the driver gets into an accident – injuring me – do I have legal recourse to Uber? Seems to me that I should. Is this question affected by the employee-contractor issue? If it is, should it be?

This prompts me to think that the law is inadequate for a gig economy.

There is, for example, always some degree of control between the parties, if for no other reason than expectation is a variant of control. Not wanting to lose the gig is – at least to me – an incident of control to the service recipient. Talk to a CPA firm partner with an outsized client about expectation and control.

Why cannot CTG Command gig an experienced tax professional – say for a specific engagement or issue - without the presumption that we hired an employee? I can reasonably assure you that I will not be an employee when I go “of counsel.” You can forget my attending those Monday morning staff meetings.

Am I “independently performing” if I have but one client? What if it is a really good client? What if I don’t want a second client?

Problem is, we know there are toxic players out there who will abuse any wiggle room you give them. Still, that is no excuse for bad tax law. Not every person who works – let’s face it – is an employee. The gig economy has simply amplified that fact.

New Life Expectancy Tables For Your Retirement Account

On November 7, 2019 the IRS issued Proposed Regulations revising life expectancy tables used to calculate minimum required distributions from retirement plans, such as IRAs.

That strikes me as a good thing. The tables have not been revised since 2002.

There are three tables that one might use, depending upon one’s situation. Let’s go over them:

The Uniform Lifetime Table

This is the old reliable and the one most of us are likely to use.

 Joint Life and Last Survivor Expectancy Table

This is more specialized. This table is for a married couple where the age difference between the spouses is greater than 10 years.

The Single Life Expectancy Table

Do not be confused: this table has nothing to do with someone being single. This is the table for inherited retirement accounts.

Let’s take a look at a five-year period for the Uniform Lifetime Table:

Age	Old	New	Difference
71	26.5	28.2	1.7
72	25.6	27.3	1.7
73	24.7	26.4	1.7
74	23.8	25.5	1.7
75	22.9	24.6	1.7

If you had a million dollars in the account, the difference in your required minimum distribution at age 71 would be $2,275.

It is not overwhelming, but let’s remember that the difference is for every remaining year of one’s life.

As an aside, I recently came across an interesting statistic. Did you know that 4 out of 5 Americans receiving retirement distributions are taking more than the minimum amount? For those – the vast majority of recipients – this revision to the life expectancy tables will have no impact.

Let’s spend a moment talking about the third table - the Single Life Expectancy Table. You may know this topic as a “stretch” IRA.

A stretch IRA is not a unique or different kind of IRA. All it means is that the owner died, and the account has passed to a beneficiary. Since minimum distributions are based on life expectancy, this raises an interesting question: whose life expectancy?

COMMENT: There is a difference on whether a spouse or a non-spouse inherits. It also matters whether the decedent reached age 70 ½ or not. It is a thicket of rules and exceptions. For the following discussion, let us presume a non-spouse inherits and the decedent was over age 70 ½.

An easy way to solve this issue would be to continue the same life expectancy table as the original owner of the account. The problem here is that – if the beneficiary is young enough – one would run out of table.

So let’s reset the table. We will use the beneficiary’s life expectancy.

And there you have the Single Life Expectancy Table.

As well as the opportunity for a stretch. How? By using someone much younger than the deceased. Grandkids, for example.

Say that a 35-year old inherits an account. What is the difference between the old and new life expectancy tables?

                                Old             48.5

                                New            50.5

Hey, it’s better than nothing and – again – it repeats every year.

There is an odd thing about using this table, if you have ever worked with a stretch IRA. For a regular IRA – e.g., you taking distributions from your own IRA – you look at the table to get a factor for your age in the distribution year. You then divide that factor into the December 31 IRA balance for the year preceding the distribution year to arrive at the required minimum amount.

Point is: you look at the table every year.

The stretch does not do that.

You look at the table one time. Say you inherit at age 34.  Your required minimum distribution begins the following year (I am making an assumption here, but let’s roll with it), when you are age 35. The factor is 48.5. When you are age 36, you subtract one from the factor (48.5 – 1.0 = 47.5) and use that new number for purposes of the calculation. The following year you again subtract one (47.5 – 1.0 = 46.5), and so on.

Under the Proposed Regulation you are to refer to the (new) Single Life Expectancy Table for that first year, take the new factor and then subtract as many “ones” as necessary to get to the beneficiary’s current age. It is confusing, methinks.

There are public comment procedures for Proposed Regulations, so there is a possibility the IRS will change something before the Regulations go final. Final will be year 2021.

So for 2020 we will use the existing tables, and for 2021 we will be using the new tables.

Repaying The Health Care Subsidy

Twice in a couple of weeks I have heard:

“They should check on the Exchange.”

The Exchange refers to the health insurance marketplace.

In both cases we were discussing someone who is between jobs.         

The idea, of course, is to get the subsidy … as someone is unemployed and can use it.

There might also be a tax trap here.

When you apply for Obamacare, you provide an estimate of your income for the coverage year. The answer is intuitive if you are applying for 2020 (as we are not in 2020 yet), but it could also happen if you go in during the coverage year. Say you are laid-off in July. You know your income through July, and you are guessing what it might be for the rest of the year.

So what?

There is a big what.

Receive a subsidy and you have to pay it back – every penny of it – if your income exceeds 400% of the poverty line for your state.

Accountants refer to this as a “cliff.” Get to that last dollar of income and your marginal tax rate goes stratospheric.

Four times the poverty rate for a single person in Kentucky is approximately $50 grand.  Have your income come in at $50 grand and a dollar and you have to repay the entire subsidy.

It can hurt.

How much latitude does a tax preparer have?

Not much. I suppose if we are close we might talk about making a deductible IRA contribution, or selling stock at a loss, or ….

There may be more latitude if one is self-employed. Perhaps one could double-down on the depreciation, or recount the inventory, or ….

Massoud and Ziba Fanaieyan got themselves into this predicament.

The Fanaieyans lived in California. He was retired and owned several rental properties. She worked as a hairstylist.

They received over $15,000 in subsidies for their 2015 tax year.

Four times the California poverty line was $97,000.

They reported adjusted gross income of $100,767.

And there was (what I consider) a fatal preparation mistake. They failed to include Form 8962, which is the tax form that reconciles the subsidy received to the subsidy to which one was actually entitled based on income reported on the tax return.

The IRS sent a letter asking for the Form 8962.

The Fanaieyans realized their mistake.

Folks, for the most part tax planning is not a retroactive exercise. Their hands were tied.

Except ….

Mr. Fanaieyan remembered that book he was writing. All right, it was his sister’s book, but he was involved too. He had paid some expenses in 2012 and 2013. Oh, and he had advanced his sister $1,500 in 2015.

He had given up the dream of publishing in 2015. Surely, he could now write-off those expenses. No point carrying them any longer. The dream was gone.

They amended their 2015 tax return for a book publishing loss.

The IRS looked at them like they had three eyes each.

To Court they went.

There were technical issues that we will not dive into. For example, as a cash-basis taxpayer, didn’t they have to deduct those expenses back in 2012 and 2013? And was it really a business, or did they have a (dreaded) hobby loss? Was it even a loss, or were they making a gift to his sister?

The Court bounced the deduction. They had several grounds to do so, and so they did.

The Fanaieyans had income over four times the poverty level.

They had to repay the advance subsidies.

I cannot help but wonder how this would have turned out if they had claimed the same loss on their originally-filed return AND included a properly-completed Form 8962.  

Failing to include the 8962 meant that someone was going to look at the file.

Amending the return also meant that someone was going to look at the file.

Too many looks.

NCAA: From Cream Cheese To Endorsements

You may have read that the NCAA voted to allow students to benefit financially from the use of their name, image or likeness.

In truth, their hand was forced when California Governor Newsom signed the Fair Pay to Play Act on Lebron’s television show “The Shop.” Other states, including Florida, were also lining up on the issue.

Newsom was striking at an organization that realized over a $1 billion in revenues last year from “student-athletes,” all the while banning players from receiving any compensation other than scholarships.

Mind you, this is the same organization that used to ban schools from serving bagels with cream cheese. The NCAA argued (with a straight face somehow) that a bagel was a snack but a bagel with cream cheese was a meal. Meals were a no-go.

The tax hook for this post came from North Carolina (U.S.) Senator Richard Burr, who indicated he would introduce a bill to tax scholarships if the student-athlete also earns money from endorsements.

Methinks that Senator Burr is not a fan of the new rule.

Alternatively, he may subscribe to the new-economics theory of taxing something until it stops doing whatever triggered its taxation in the first place.

Did you know that some scholarships are already taxable?

Yep, the plain-old variety.

Scholarships used to be tax-free until 1980. The Code was then changed to look at whether services were being performed as a requirement for receiving the scholarship. Teaching assistantships would now be taxable, for example.

There was further change in 1986, when the Code began taxing scholarships used for living expenses.  If one received a scholarship, it was now important to determine whether it was for tuition or for room-and-board. Tuition was tax-free but room-and-board was not.

COMMENT: This change seems erratic to me, considering that The College Board has reported that living expenses make-up over half the cost of undergraduate education.

Scholarships for non-degree students next became taxable.

I would have to think about what national existential peril we barely avoided with that change to the tax law.

Senator Burr would add another exception-to-the-exception if you could buy a jersey with someone’s name on it. Alabama’s Tua Tagovailoa comes to mind. Your being able to buy a jersey with his name and number would make his scholarship taxable. It probably means little in Tua’s case, as he is projected to be a first round NFL draft selection. Take someone in a less prominent sport and the result might not feel as comfortable.

Then again, someone less prominent would probably not get into a payment-for-name, image-or-likeness situation.

The Stealth Tax On Your Social Security

Social security benefits first became taxable in 1983.

The law was relatively straightforward:

·        Half of one’s social security became taxable as adjusted gross income exceeded

o   $32,000 for marrieds filing jointly,

o   $25,000 for everyone else, except for

o   Marrieds filing separately, whose threshold was zero (-0-)

Clearly the tax law frowned on married social security recipients filing separately.

The Senate Finance Committee Report commented on why any social security was being taxed at all:

… by taxing social security benefits and appropriating these revenues to the appropriate trust funds, the financial solvency of the social security trust funds will be strengthened.”

Uh, sure.

In 1993 Congress laid a second grid on top of the 1983 law:

·        85% of one’s social security as adjusted gross income exceeded

o   $44,000 for marrieds filing jointly

o   $34,000 for everyone else, except for

o   Marrieds filing separately, whose threshold remained at zero (-0-)

Depending on where one is income-wise, part of one’s social security can be taxed at 50% and another part at 85%. Make enough and a clawback kicks-in: all your social security will be taxable at 85%.

Seems a bit complicated for a tax provision that snags ordinary people.

So in 1983, if you were married, filing joint and your income was less than $32 grand, your social security was not taxed.

I was curious: what is the equivalent of $32,000 of 1983 dollars in 2019?

Approximately $82 grand.

Wow!

I was also curious: how have the income thresholds for social security changed over three-plus decades?

Here are the thresholds for 2018:

·        $32,000/$25,000

·        $44,000/$34,000

They have not changed at all.

Meanwhile you need almost three 2019 dollars to equal one dollar from 1983.

So let me get this right.

IRA deductions are indexed for inflation. Gift taxes are indexed for inflation. The income thresholds for the new 20% passthrough deduction are indexed for inflation.

But the tax on social security is not.

What a nice gimmick. Even if you started out below the tax threshold, inflation over time would probably put you above the tax threshold.

The cynicism from our politicians is stunning.

Losing Your Passport For Tax Debt

Here is something you don’t see every day:

There is a section in the tax Code that can affect your passport. It entered the tax law in 2015, and it allows the IRS to notify the State Department if you have a seriously delinquent tax debt.

How much tax debt are we talking about?

Around $52,000.

As a career tax CPA, I do not consider $52,000 enough to hold-up someone’s passport. Granted, my perspective is a bit skewed, as average folk (like you or me) are not likely to require my services, at least not on a repetitive basis. Still, I have had friends and acquaintances who have danced the tax tango near or above $52 grand, so I know that average folks can get there.

If the IRS notifies the State Department, the law requires them to deny your passport application or renewal.

That will put a chill on your travel plans.

How do you get out of this predicament?

As a generalization, the IRS does not want to chase you down. They certainly do not want to seize your assets or bounce your passport. What they want is your money.  

I do not immediately know Derrick Tartt’s issue with the IRS, but I can tell you that it has gone cold. If his issue was still being handled – in Appeals, Tax Court, a payment plan or whatnot – this should not have happened. I will not say “would not,” as I have been in practice long enough to see too many “would nots” land on my desk.

How should Mr. Tartt handle this?

He is going to have to move his file from cold to warm. This may mean writing a check or entering a payment plan.

That presumes he owes the tax.

What if he disagrees that he owes the tax, or at least disagrees that he owes all of it?

The situation becomes trickier. His file has moved to Collections, and that crowd does not care whether you owe or not. Their only concern is prying money from you.

Am I being unfair?

Let me give you an story. We have a client who got himself into a tax hole a few years ago. He has been working his way out, and he was very optimistic that his 2018 return would have a large enough refund to pay off the back taxes, interest and penalties. He was partially correct, as he did have a refund, but it was not enough for payoff in full. It did however put him close enough that he could write a check for the balance.

I called Collections to hold back the hounds. I requested that the refund be applied (which would happen automatically, but I wanted to talk to them) and requested a bit more time for the balance, as he is presently battling a second round of prostate cancer. His attention is … shall we say … elsewhere, understandably.

Understandable for you or me, but not for Collections. One would have to wheel in the Gran Telescopio Canarias telescope to find empathy in that universe. I may as well have been speaking with Arthur Fleck.

If Mr. Tartt disagrees that he owes tax (or some of it), his advisor will have to reopen his file. There may be several possibilities, depending on the facts and the amount of time lapsed, and he should seek professional advice.

That will not happen fast enough to get Mr. Tartt to the Dominican Republic or Cayman Islands in the near future, however.

I hope it works out for Mr. Tartt.