Income, Clearly Realized

 

What is income?

Believe it or not, there is a line of cases over decades developing the tax concept of income.

Some instances are clear-cut: if you receive wages or salary, for example, then you have income.

Some instances may not be so clear-cut.

For example, let’s say that you receive a stock dividend. The company has a good year, and you receive – as an example – 1 additional share for every 5 shares you own.  

Do you have income?

Let’s talk this out. Let’s say that the company is worth $25 million before the stock dividend and has 1 million shares outstanding. After the stock dividend it will have 1.2 million shares outstanding. What are those extra 200,000 shares worth?

This is an actual case – Eisner v Macomber - that the Supreme Court decided in 1920. Congress had changed the tax law to tax this stock dividend, and someone (Myrtle Macomber) brought suit arguing that the law was unconstitutional.

Her argument:

·      The company was worth $25 million before the dividend

·      The company was worth $25 million after the dividend

·      She may have more shares, but her shares represent the same proportional ownership of the company.

·      She did not have any more money than she had before.

She had a point.

The Bureau of Internal Revenue (that is, the IRS) came at it from a different angle:

There was income – the income generated by the company.  The company was “distributing” said income by means of a stock dividend.

The Court reasoned that one could have income from labor or from capital. The first did not apply, and it could find nothing to support the second had happened to Mrs Macomber.

The Court decided that she did not have income.

Let’s continue.

The Glenshaw Glass Company sued the Hartford-Empire Company for damages stemming from fraud and for treble damages for business injury.

The two companies settled, and Hartford was paid approximately $325 thousand in punitive damages.

Glenshaw had no intention of paying tax on that $325 grand. That money was not paid because of labor or because of capital. It was paid because of injury to its business - returning Glenshaw to where it should have been if not for the tortious behavior.

Not labor, not capital. Glenshaw was draped all over that earlier Eisner v Macomber decision.

But the IRS had a point – in fact, 325 thousand points.

Here is the Court:

Here we have instances of undeniable accessions to wealth, clearly realized, and over which taxpayers have complete dominion. The mere fact that the payments were extracted from the wrongdoers as punishment for unlawful conduct cannot detract from their character as taxable income.”

The Court levered away from its earlier labor/capital impasse and clarified income to be:

·      An increase in wealth

·      Clearly realized, and

·      Over which one has (temporary or permanent) discretion or control

In time Glenshaw has come to mean that everything is taxable unless Congress says that it is not taxable. While not mathematically precise, it is precise enough for day-to-day use.

I have a question, though.

At a conceptual level, what are the limits on the “clearly realized” requirement?

I get it when someone receive a paycheck.

I also get it when someone sells a mutual fund.

But what if your IRA has gone up in value, but you haven’t taken a distribution?

Or the house in which you raised your family has appreciated in value?

Do you have an increase in wealth?

Do you have discretion or control over said increase in wealth?

Do you have “income” that Congress can tax under Glenshaw?

A Winter Barge and Depreciation

 

The question comes up with some frequency: when is an asset placed-in-service for tax purposes?

Generally one is talking about depreciation. Buy an expensive asset near the end of the year, allow for delivery (and perhaps installation) time and one becomes quite interested with the metaphysics of depreciation.

Let me give you a couple of situations:

·      You finish constructing an office building near the end of the year. It is ready-to-go, but your first tenant doesn’t move in until early the following year. When do you start depreciation?

·      You are a pilot and buy a plane through your business. It is delivered in the last few days of December. There is no business travel (as it is near year-end and between holidays), but you take the plane up for its shakedown flight. When do you start depreciation?

The numbers can become impressive when you consider that we presently have 100% bonus depreciation, meaning that a qualifying asset’s cost can be depreciated/deducted in full when it is placed in service.

And what do you do in COVID 2020/2021, if you buy an asset but government orders and mandates restrict or close the business?

There is a classic tax case that goes back to the 1960s. It distinguished between an asset being ready and available for use and actually being placed into use. Why the nitpicking? Because life happens. In general, a place-in-service date occurs when the asset is ready and available for use.  

Well, that rule-of-thumb would help with COVID 2020/2021 issues.

On to our case.

A company in New York bought a barge from a builder in Louisiana.

The barge made it to Rome, New York.

It was outfitted and ready to go by the end of 1957.

Winter came. The canal froze. The barge was stuck in a frozen New York canal until spring of 1958.

When was the barge placed-in-service?

You know the IRS was on the side of 1958. They had persuasive arguments in their favor, and that – plus the sheer cost of a barge – meant the matter was going to be litigated.

Here is the Court:

… the barge was ready for charter or for use in the taxpayer’s own distribution business by December 1, 1957, but could not be used until May, 1958, because it was frozen into the water of an upstate canal. This was certainly not a condition which the taxpayer desired to bring about.”

And here is the staying power of the case:

… depreciation may be taken when depreciable property is available for use ‘should the occasion arise,’ even if the property is not in fact in use.”

Common tax issue + dramatic facts = memorable tax law.

Our case this time was Sears Oil Co., Inc v Commissioner, 359 F.2^nd 191 (2d Cir 1966).

Happy Halloween

 

ProShares Bitcoin ETF and Futures Taxation

 

This week something happened that made me think of a friend who passed away last year.

I remember him laboring me on the benefits of CBD oil and the need to invest in Bitcoin.

When he and I last left it (before COVID last year), Bitcoin was around $10 grand. It is over $60 grand presently.

Missed the boat and the harbor on that one.

This past week ProShares came out with a Bitcoin ETF (BITO). I read that it tripped the billion-dollar mark after two or three days of trading.

With that level of market acceptance, I suspect we will see a number of these in the near future.

This ETF does not hold Bitcoin itself (whatever that means). It instead will hold futures in Bitcoin.

Let’s talk about the taxation of futures.

First, what are futures and what purpose do they serve?

Let’s say that you are The Hershey Company and you want to lock-in prices for next year’s cacao and sugar. These commodities are a significant part of your costs of production, and you want to have some control over the price you will pay. You are a buyer of futures commodity contracts – in cacao and sugar – locking in volume, price and date of delivery.

Whereas you do not own the cacao and sugar yet, if their price goes up, you would have made a profit on the contract. The reverse is true, of course, if the price goes down. Granted, the price swing on the futures contract will likely be different than the swing in spot price for the commodity, as there is the element of time in the contract.  

That said, there is always someone looking to make a profit. Problem: if commodity traders had to actually receive or deliver the commodity, few people would do it. Solution: separate the contract from actual product delivery.  The contract can then be bought and sold until the delivery date; the buyers and sellers just settle-up any price swings between them upon sale.

It would be also nice to have a market that coordinates these trades. There are several, including the Chicago Mercantile Exchange. The Exchange allows the contracts to be standardized, which in turn allows traders to buy and sell them without any intent to ever receive or deliver the underlying commodity.

The ETF we are discussing (BITO) will not own any Bitcoin itself. It will instead buy and sell futures contracts in Bitcoin.

Bitcoin futures are considered “Section 1256 contracts” in tax law.

Section 1256 brings its own idiosyncrasies:

* There is a mark-to-market rule.

The term “mark” to an accountant means that something is reset to its market price. In the context of BITO, it means that – if you own it at year-end – it will be considered to have been sold. Mind you, it was not actually sold, but there will be a “let’s pretend” calculation of gain or loss as if it had been sold. Why would you care? You would care if the price went up and you had a taxable gain. You will soon be writing a very real check to the IRS for that “let’s pretend” mark.

* The 60/40 rule

This rule is nonintuitive. Whether you have capital gains or losses, those gains and losses are deemed to 60% long-term and 40% short term. The tax Code (with exceptions we will ignore for this discussion) does not care how long you actually owned the contracts. Whether one day or two years, the gain or loss will be deemed 60/40.

Mind you, this is not necessarily a bad result as long-term capital gains have favorable tax rates.

* Special carryback rule

If you have an overall Section 1256 loss for the year, you can carryback that loss to the preceding three years. There is a restriction, though: the carryback can only offset Section 1256 gains in those prior years.

This is a narrow rule, by the way. I do not remember ever seeing this carryback, and I have been in tax practice for over 35 years.

I do not know but I anticipate that BITO will be sending out Schedules K-1 rather than 1099s to its investors, as these ETFs tend to be structured as limited partnerships. That does not overly concern me, but some accountants are wary as the K-1s can be trickier to handle and sometimes present undesired state tax considerations.

Similar to my response to Bitcoin investing in early 2020, I will likely pass on this opportunity. There are unusual considerations in futures trading – google “contango” and “backwardation” for example – that you may want to look into when considering the investment.

Owing Partnership Tax As A Partner

 

We have wrapped-up (almost) another filing season here at Galactic Command. I include “almost” as we have nonprofit 990s due next month, but for the most part the heavy lifting is done.

Tax seasons 2020 and 2021 have been a real peach.

I am looking at a tax case that mirrors a conversation I was having with one of our CPAs two or three days ago. He was preparing a return for someone with significant partnership investments. The two I looked at are commonly described as “trader” partnerships.

The tax reporting for trader partnerships can be confusing, especially for younger practitioners. A normal investment partnership buys and sells stocks and securities, collects interest and dividends and has capital gains or losses along the way. The tax reporting shows interest and dividends and capital gains and losses – in short, it makes sense.

The trader partnership adds one more thing: it actively buys and sells stocks and securities as a business activity, so to speak. Think of it as a day trader as opposed to a long-term investor. The tax issue is that one has interest, dividends and capital gains and losses from the trader side as well as the nontrader side. The trader partnership separates the two, with the result that trading dividends (as an example) might be reported somewhere different on the Schedule K-1 from nontrading dividends. If you don’t know the theory, it doesn’t make sense.

The two partnerships pumped out meaningful taxable income.

What they did not do was pump out equivalent cash distributions. In fact, I would say that the partnerships distributed approximately enough cash to pay the taxes thereon, assuming that the partner was near the highest tax bracket.

The client had issues with the draft tax return.

Why?

There was no way he could have that much income as he did not receive that much cash.

And therein is a lesson in partnership taxation.

Let’s take a look at the Dodd case.

Dodd was the office manager at a D.C. law firm. The firm specialized in real estate and construction law.

She in turn became a 33.5% member in a partnership (Cadillac) transacting in – wait on it – the purchase, leasing and sale of real property. The other 66.5% partner was an attorney-partner in the law firm.

Routine so far.

Cadillac did well in 2013. Her share of gains from property sales was over a $1 million. Her cash distributions were approximately $200 grand.

Got it: 20 cents on the dollar.

When she prepared her individual return, she included that $1 million-plus gain as well as partnership losses. She owed around $170 grand with the return.

She did not send a check for the amount due.

The case has been bogged-down in tax procedure for several years. The IRS wanted its tax, and Dodd in turn requested Collections (CDP) hearings. We have had three rounds of back-and-forth, with the result that we are still talking about the case in 2021.

Her argument?

Simple. She had never received the $1 million. The money instead went to the bank to pay down a line of credit.

This is going to turn out badly for Dodd.

At 30 thousand feet, partnership taxation is relatively intuitive. A partnership does not pay taxes itself. Rather it files a tax return, and the partners in the partnership are allocated their share of the income and are themselves responsible for paying taxes on that share.

The complexity in partnership taxation comes primarily from how one allocates the income, as tax attorneys and CPAs have had decades to bend the rules.

Notice that I did not say anything about cash distributions.

Mind you, it is bad business to pump-out taxable income without distributing cash to cover the tax, but it is unlikely that a partnership will distribute cash exactly equal to its income. Why? Here are a couple of reasons that come immediately to mind:

·      Depreciation

The partnership buys something and depreciates it. It is likely that the depreciation (which follows tax rules) will not equal the cash payments for whatever was bought.

·      Debt

Any cash used to repay the bank is cash not available to distribute to the partners.

There is, by the way, a technique to discourage creditors of a partner from taking a partner’s partnership interest. Why would a creditor do this? To get to those distributions, of course.

There is a legal issue here, however. Let’s say that you, me and Lucy decided to form a partnership. Lucy has financial difficulties, and one of her creditors takes over her partnership interest. You and I did not form a partnership with Lucy’s creditor; we formed a partnership with Lucy. That creditor cannot just come in and force you and me to be partners with him/her. The best the creditor can do is get a “charging order,” which means the creditor receives only the right to Lucy’s distributions. The creditor cannot otherwise vote, demand the sale of assets or force the termination of the partnership.

What do you and I do in response to the new guy?

The creditor will have to report Lucy’s share of the partnership income, of course.

We in turn make no distributions to Lucy - or to the new guy. The partnership distributes to you and me, but that creditor is on his/her own. Sorry. Not. Go away.

As you can guess, creditors are not big fans of going after debtor partnership interests.

Back to Dodd.

What did the Court say?

No matter the reason for nondistribution, each partner must pay taxes on his distributive share.”

To restate:

Each partner is taxed on the its distributive share of partnership income without regard to whether the income is actually distributed.”

Dodd had no hope with this argument.

Maybe she would have better luck with her Collections appeal, but that is not the topic of our discussion this time.

We have been discussing Dodd v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2021-118.

Uber Driver Failed To Report Income

I am reading a case concerning an Uber driver who ran afoul of Form 1099 requirements.

The amounts at issue were impressive.

           Tax                          $193,784

           Penalties                  $ 85,354

Robert Nurumbi drove for Uber in 2015. He ran the business through a single-member LLC and used two bank accounts. Business was doing well. He bought multiple cars which he rented out to family and friends who drove for Uber through him. The twist to the tale is that all Uber payments were paid to the LLC’s bank account - meaning Nurumbi’s bank account, as he was the LLC - and he in turn would pay his family and friends.

Sounds like he established a small business, with employees and all.

Except that he treated his drivers as independent contractors, not employees. I get it: Uber is gig economy.

Every week Uber would pay Nurumbi. He would transfer the family-and-friends portion to a second bank account. He would sometimes pay them by electronic transfer; at other times he paid in cash. He did not keep documentation on these payments, and he further muddied the waters by also paying nondriver expenses from the second bank account.

He filed his 2015 personal tax return showing wages of approximately $19 grand.

Uber meanwhile issued him two 1099s totaling approximately $543 thousand.

The IRS saw a case of unreported income.

It is not clear to me how Nurumbi prepared his tax return, as a self-employed does not receive a W-2 from himself. He should have filed a Schedule C with his return, as Schedule C reports self-employed business activity. I would have expected his C to report gross receipts of approximately $543 grand, with a bunch of expenses reducing the net to approximately $19 thousand. The IRS would have matched Uber’s 1099 to the gross receipts on the Schedule C and spared us the drama.

However, Nurumbi did not prepare his taxes this way.

Dumb, I am thinking, but not necessarily fatal. Nurumbi would submit a Schedule C (or a facsimile thereof) and argue his point.

But the damage had been done. Nurumbi had spotted the IRS gross income of $543 grand. He next had to show expenses bringing his net income down to $19 thousand. This gave the IRS the chance to say: prove it.

Which is why we keep records: invoices, bank statements, cancelled checks, QuickBooks files and so forth.  

Nurumbi had a problem. He kept next to no records. He had not issued 1099s. His records in many cases were inadequate to even calculate a 1099.

Nurumbi played a wild card.

There is a court-created exception to the customary documentation requirements. It is called the Cohan rule, and it refers to the person and case that prompted the exception decades ago. The rule has two key requirements:

(1)  One must prove that the expenditure occurred, and

(2)  One must prove that the expenditure relates to and was incurred in one’s trade or business.

Even then, the exception will probably not yield the same result as keeping records. The Court may spot you something, but that something is likely to be much less than what you actually incurred.

Nurumbi’s records were so feckless that it would have been unsurprising if the Court allowed nothing.

Except …

Remember that he sometimes paid his drivers electronically from the second bank account.

The Court spotted him a deduction of approximately $157 grand for those payments.

What about the cash payments to his drivers?

No dice.

Let’s summarize the damage.

The IRS increased his 2015 income from $18 to $543 thousand.

The Court allowed a deduction of approximately $157 thousand.

There was another significant deduction that we did not discuss: the fee paid to Uber itself. That was approximately $163 thousand.

That still leaves a bump to income of almost $205 grand.

I believe that Nurumbi paid the money to his family and friends.

But there was no tax deduction.

To be fair, he is the one who decided to keep the payments under-the-table. While not stated, I suspect this … flexibility … was a key factor in the Court’s decision.

Our case this time was Nurumbi v Commissioner, TC Memo 2021-79.

Section 1202 Stock And A House Tax Proposal

I am not a fan of fickleness and caprice in the tax law.

I am seeing a tax proposal in the House Ways and Means Committee that represents one.

It has been several years since we spoke about qualified small business stock (QSBS). Tax practice is acronym rich, and one of the reasons is to shortcut who qualifies – and does not qualify – for a certain tax provision. Section 1202 defines QSBS as stock:

·      issued by a C corporation,

·      with less than $50 million in assets at time of stock issuance,

·      engaged in an active trade or business,

·      acquired at original issuance by an eligible shareholder in exchange for either cash or services provided, and

·      held for at least five years.

The purpose of this provision is to encourage – supposedly – business start-ups.

How?

A portion of the gain is not taxed when one sells the stock.

This provision has been out there for approximately 30 years, and the portion not taxed has changed over time. Early on, one excluded 50% (up to a point); it then became 75% and is now 100% (again, up to a point).

What is that point?

The amount of gain that can be excluded is the greater of:

·      $10 million, or

·      10 times the taxpayer’s basis in the stock disposed

Sweet.

Does that mean I sell my tax practice for megabucks, all the while excluding $10 million of gain?

Well, no. Accounting practices do not qualify for Section 1202. Not to feel singled- out, law and medical practices do not qualify either.

I have seen very few Section 1202 transactions over the years. I believe there are two primary reasons for this:

                 

(a)  I came into the profession near the time of the 1986 Tax Reform Act, which single-handedly tilted choice-of-entity for entrepreneurial companies from C to S corporations. Without going into details, the issue with a C corporation is getting money out without paying double tax. It is not an issue if one is talking about paying salary or rent, as one side deducts and the other side reports income. It is however an issue when the business is sold. The S corporation allows one to mitigate (or altogether avoid) the double tax in this situation. Overnight the S corporation became the entity of choice for entrepreneurial and closely-held companies. There has been some change in recent years as LLCs have gained popularity, but the C corporation continues to be out-of-favor for non-Wall Street companies. 

 

(b)  The sale of entrepreneurial and closely-held companies is rarely done as a stock purchase, a requirement for Section 1202 stock. These companies sell their assets, not their stock. Stock acquisitions are more a Wall Street phenomenon.

So, who benefits from Section 1202?

A company that would be acquired via a stock purchase. Someone like … a tech start-up, for example. How sweet it would have been to be an early investor in Uber or Ring, for example. And remember: the $10 million cap is per investor. Take hundreds of qualifying investors and you can multiply that $10 million by hundreds.

You can see the loss to the Treasury.

Is it worth it?

There has been criticism that perhaps the real-world beneficiaries of Section 1202 are not what was intended many years ago when this provision entered the tax Code.

I get it.

So what is the House Ways and Means Committee proposing concerning Section 1202?

They propose to cut the exclusion to 50% from 100% for taxpayers with adjusted gross income (AGI) over $400 grand and for sales after September 13, 2021.

Set aside the $400 grand AGI. That sale might be the only time in life that someone ever got close to or exceeded $400 grand of income.

The issue is sales after September 13, 2021.

It takes at least five years to even qualify for Section 1202. This means that the tax planning for a 2021 sale was done on or before 2016, and now the House wants to retroactively nullify tax law that people relied upon years ago.

Nonsense like this is damaging to normal business. I have made a career representing entrepreneurs and their closely-held businesses. I have been there – first person singular - where business decisions have been modified or scrapped because of tax disincentives. Taxing someone to death clearly qualifies as a business disincentive. So does retroactively changing the rules on a decision that takes years to play out. Mind you – I say that not as a fan of Section 1202.

To me it would make more sense to change the rules only for stock issued after a certain date – say September 13, 2021 – and not for sales after that date. One at least would be forewarned.   

Should bad-faith tax proposals like this concern you?

Well, yes. If our current kakistocracy can do this, what keeps them from retroactively revoking the current tax benefits of your Roth IRA?  How would you feel if you have been following the rules for 20 years, contributing to your Roth, paying taxes currently, all with the understanding that future withdrawals would be tax-free, and meanwhile a future Congress decides to revoke that rule - retroactively?

I can tell you how I would feel.