Part Time Bookkeeper, Big Time Penalty

 

We filed another petition with the Tax Court this week.

For a client new to the firm.

Much of this unfortunately was ICDIM: I can do it myself. The client did not understand how the IRS matches information. There was an oddball one-off transaction, resulting in nonstandard tax reporting. Stir in some you-do-not-know-what-you-do-not-know (YDNKWYDNK), some COVIDIRS202020212022 and now I am involved.

I am looking at case that just screams YDNKWYDNK.

Here is part of the first paragraph:

This case is before the Court on a Petition for review of a Notice of Determination Concerning Collection Action(s) Under Section 6320 and/or 6330, dated February 13, 2018 (notice of determination). The notice of determination sustained a notice of federal tax lien (NFTL) filing (NFTL filing) with respect to trust fund recovery penalties (TFRPs) under section 6672. The TFRPs were assessed against petitioner for failing to collect and pay over employment taxes owed by Urgent Care Center, Inc. (Urgent Care), for taxable quarters ending June 30 and September 30, 2014 (periods at issue), resulting in outstanding liabilities of $6, 184.23 and $4, 190.77, respectively.

That section 6330 is hard procedural, and it is going to hurt.

Mr Kazmi was a bookkeeper. He worked part-time at Urgent Care. Urgent Care did not remit employment taxes for a stretch, and unfortunately that stretch included the period when Mr Kazmi was there.

We are talking the big boy penalty, otherwise known as the responsible person penalty. The point of the penalty is to migrate the tax due to someone who had enough authority and responsibility to have paid the IRS but chose not to.

Mr Kazmi had no ownership interest in Urgent Care. He was not an officer. He was not a signatory on any bank accounts. He had no authority to decide who got paid. At all times he worked under the authority of the person who owned the place (Dr Senno). What he did have was a tax power of attorney.

Folks, I probably have a thousand tax powers of attorney out there.

Sounds to me like Mr Kazmi was the least responsible person (at least for payroll taxes) at Urgent Care.

The IRS Revenue Officer (RO) thought otherwise and on December 16, 2015 issued Mr Kazmi a letter 1153, a letter which said “tag, you are a responsible party; have a nice day.”

From what I am reading, this was a preposterous position. I generally have respect for ROs, but this one is a bad apple.  

Still, there are consequences.

Procedurally Mr Kazmi had 60 days to challenge the 1153.

He did not.

Why?

He did not know what he did not know.

A little time passed and the IRS came for its money. It wanted a lien. It also wanted a vanilla waffle ice cream cone.

Mr Kazmi yelled: Halt! He filed for a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. In the paperwork he included the obvious:

I am just a part-time bookkeeper. I am not responsible for collection or accounting or making payments for any tax payments for Urgent Care.

Makes sense.

Doesn’t matter.

He did not know what he did not know.

Let’s talk about the “one bite at the apple” rule.  In the current context, the rule means that a taxpayer cannot challenge an underlying liability if he/she already had a prior opportunity to do so.

One bite.

Mr Kazmi had his one bite when he received his letter 1153. You remember – the one he blew off.

He was now in CDP wanting to challenge the penalty. He wanted a second bite.

Not going to get it.

CDP was happy to talk about a payment plan and deadbeat taxpayers and whatnot. What it wouldn’t do was talk about whether Mr Kazmi deserved the penalty chop to begin with.

I am not a fan of such hard procedural. The vast majority of us will go a lifetime having no interaction with the IRS, excepting perhaps a minor notice now and then. It seems unreasonable to hold an average someone to stringent and obscure rules, rules that most attorneys and CPAs – unless they are tax specialists – would themselves be unaware of.

Still, it is what it is.

Does Mr Kazmi have any options left?

I think so.

Maybe a request for reconsideration.

Odds? So-so, maybe less.

A liability offer in compromise?

I like that one better.

Folks, it would have been much easier to pop this balloon back when the IRS trotted out that inappropriate letter 1153.

Mr Kazmi did not know what he did not know.

Our case this time was Kazmi v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-13.

  

Basis Basics

I am looking at a case involving a basis limitation.

Earlier today I accepted a meeting invite with a new (at least to me) client who may be the poster child for poor tax planning when it comes to basis.

Let’s talk about basis – more specifically, basis in a passthrough entity.

The classic passthrough entities are partnerships and S corporations. The “passthrough” modifier means that the entity (generally) does not pay its own tax. Rather it slices and dices its income, deductions and credits among its owners, and the owners include their slice in their own respective tax returns.

Make money and basis is an afterthought.

Lose money and basis becomes important.

Why?

Because you can deduct your share of passthrough losses only to the extent that you have basis in the passthrough.

How in the world can a passthrough have losses that you do not have basis in?

Easy: it borrows money.

The tax issue then becomes: can you count your share of the debt as additional basis?

And we have gotten to one of the mind-blowing areas of passthrough taxation.  Tax planners and advisors bent the rules so hard back in the days of old-fashioned tax shelters that we are still reeling from the effect.

Let’s start easy.

You and I form a partnership. We both put in $10 grand.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

 

The partnership buys an office condo for $500 grand. We put $20 grand down and take a mortgage for the rest.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash                  10,000       10,000                  

         Mortgage        240,000       240,000

                                250,000       250,000

So we can each have enough basis to deduct $250,000 of losses from this office condo. Hopefully that won’t be necessary. I would prefer to make a profit and just pay my tax, thank you.

Let’s change one thing.

Let’s make it an S corporation rather than partnership.

What is our basis?

                                     Me             You

         Cash               10,000        10,000                   

         Mortgage             -0-              -0-

                                10,000        10,000

Huh?

Welcome to tax law.

A partner in a general partnership gets to increase his/her basis by his/her allocable share of partnership debt. The rule can be different for LLC’s taxed as a partnership, but let’s not get out over our skis right now.       

When you and I are partners in a partnership, we get to add our share of the mortgage - $480,000 – to our basis.

S corporations tighten up that rule a lot. You and I get basis only for our direct loans to the S corporation. That mortgage is not a direct loan from us, so we do not get basis.

What does a tax planner do?

For one thing, he/she does not put an office condo in an S corporation if one expects it to throw off tax losses.

What if it has already happened?

I suppose you and I can throw cash into the S. I assure you my wife will not be happy with that sparkling tax planning gem.

I suppose we could refinance the mortgage in our own names rather than the corporate name.

That would be odd if you think about. We would have personal debt on a building we do not own personally.

Yeah, it is better not to go there.

The client meeting I mentioned earlier?

They took a partnership interest holding debt-laden real estate and put it inside an S corporation.

Problem: that debt doesn’t create basis to them in the S corporation. We have debt and no tax pop. Who advised this? Someone who should not work tax, I would say.

I am going to leverage our example to discuss what the Kohouts (our tax case this time) did that drew the Tax Court’s disapproval.               

Let’s go back to our S corporation. Let’s add a new fact: we owe someone $480,000. Mind you, you and I owe – not the S corporation. Whatever the transaction was, it has nothing to do with the S corporation.

We hatch the following plan.

We put in $240,000 each.

You: OK.

We then have the corporation pay the someone $480,000.

You: Hold up, won’t that reduce our basis when we cut the check?

Ahh, but we have the corporation call it a “loan” The corporation still has a $480,000 asset. Mind you, the asset is no longer cash. It is now a “loan.”  Wells Fargo and Fifth Third do it all the time.

You: Why would the corporation lend someone $480,000? Wells Fargo and Fifth Third are at least … well, banks.

You have to learn when to stop asking questions.

You: Are we going to have a delay between putting in the cash and paying - excuse me - “loaning” someone $480,000?

Nope. Same day, same time. Get it over with. Rip the band-aid.

You: Wouldn’t a Court have an issue with this if we get caught … errr … have the bad luck to get audited?

Segue to our court case.

In Kohout the Court considered a situation similar enough to our example. They dryly commented:

Courts evaluating a transaction for economic substance should exercise common sense …”

The Court said that all the money sloshing around could be construed as one economic transaction. As the money did not take even a breather in the S corporation, the Court refused to spot the Kohouts any increase in basis.

Our case this time was Kohout v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-37.

A Model Home As A Business

 

What does a tax CPA do a few days after the filing deadline?

This one is reviewing a 17-page Tax Court case.

Yes, I would rather be watching the new Batman movie. There isn’t much time for such things during busy season. Maybe tomorrow.

Back to the case.

There is a mom and dad and daughter. Mom and dad (the Walters) lived in Georgia. They had launched three successful business in Michigan during the 70s and 80s. They thereafter moved to Georgia to continue their winning streak by developing and owning La-Z-Boy stores.

During the 90s dad invested in and subsequently joined the board of an environmentally oriented Florida company. He followed the environmental field and its technology, obtained certifications and even guest lectured at Western Carolina University.

Daughter received an undergraduate degree in environmental science and then a law degree at a school offering a focus on environmental law.

After finishing law school, daughter informed her parents that she was not interested in the furniture business. Mom and dad sold the La-Z-Boy businesses but kept the real estate in an entity called D&J Properties. They were now landlords to La-Z-Boy stores.

The family decided to pivot D&J by entering the green real estate market.

Through the daughter’s connections, mom and dad became aware of a low-density housing development in North Carolina, emphasizing land conservation and the incorporation of geothermal and solar technologies.

You know this caught dad and daughter’s attention.

They bought a lot. They built a house (Balsam Home). They stuck it in D&J Properties. The house received awards. Life was good.

They received an invitation to participate in a “Fall Festival of Color.” Current and potential property owners would tour Balsam Home, meet with members of the team and attend a panel discussion. Word went out to the media, including the Atlanta Journal-Constitution.

Balsam Home became a model home for the development. Awards and certificates were hung on the walls, pamphlets about green technology were placed on coffee tables. A broker showed Balsam Home when mom and dad were back at their regular residence.

Sometimes the line blurred between model home and “home” home. Mom and dad registered cars at the Balsam Home address, for example, and dad availed himself of a golf membership. On the flip side, the green technology required one to be attentive and hands-on, and mom and dad did most of that work themselves.

Where is the tax issue here?

Balsam Home never showed a profit.

The La-Z-Boy stores did.

The IRS challenged D&J Properties, arguing that Balsam Home was not a business activity conducted for profit and therefore its losses could not offset the rental income from the furniture stores.

This “not engaged in for profit” challenge is more common than you may think. I am thinking of the following from my own recent-enough experience:

·      A mom supporting her musically inclined twin sons

·      A young golfer hoping to go pro

·      A model certain to be discovered

·      A dancer determined she would join a professional company

·      A dressage rider meeting “all the right people” for later success

The common thread is that some activity does not make money, seems likely to never make money but is nonetheless pursued and continued, normally by someone having (or subsidized by someone having) enough other income or wealth to do so. It can be, in other words, a tax write-off.

But then again, someone will be the next Bruno Mars, Scottie Scheffler or Stevie Nicks. Is it a long shot? Sure, but there will be someone.

Not surprisingly, there is a grid of questions that the IRS and courts go through to weigh the decision. It is not quite as easy as having more “yes” than “no” answers, but you get the idea.

Here is a (very) quick recap of the grid:

·      Manner in which taxpayer carried on the activity

·      Taxpayer’s expertise

·      Taxpayer’s advisors’ expertise

·      Time and effort expended by the taxpayer

·      Expectation that activity assets will appreciate in value

·      Success of the taxpayer on carrying on similar activities

·      History of activity income and loss

·      Financial status of the taxpayer

·      Elements of personal pleasure or recreation

Let’s review a few.

·      Seems to me that mom, dad and daughter had a fairly strong background in green technology. The IRS disagreed, arguing “yes this but not that.”  The Court disagreed with the IRS.

·      Turns out that mom and dad put a lot of time into Balsam House, and much of that time was as prosaic as fertilizing, weeding and landscaping. The Court gave them this one.

·      Being real estate, it was assumed that the asset involved would appreciate in value.

o  BTW this argument is often used in long-shot race-horse challenges. Win a Kentucky Derby, for example, and all those losses pale in comparison to the future income.

·      I expected financial status to be a strong challenge by the IRS. Mom and dad owned those La-Z-Boy stores, for example. The Court took pains to point out that they had sold the stores but kept the real estate, so the ongoing income was not comparable. The Court called a push on this factor, which I considered quite generous.

The Court decided that the activity was conducted for profit and that losses could be used to offset income from the furniture stores.

A win for the taxpayers.

Could it have gone differently?

You bet. Court decisions in this area can be … quixotic.  

Our case this time was Walters v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-17.

Losing Deductions By Not Filing A Tax Return

I have become increasingly reluctant to accept a nonfiler as a client. That said, a partner somehow sneaks one or two a year into Command Center, and I – reluctant or not – become involved. It would not be so bad if it was just a matter of catching-up with the paperwork, but often one needs to stave off Collections, establish a payment plan, request penalty abatement (done after the taxes are paid, meaning I have to monitor it in my spare time) and on-and-on.

Try doing this during IRSCOVID202020212022. It is zero fun.

I am looking at a nonfiler that took a self-inflicted wound.

Let’s talk about Shawn Salter.

Salter was a loss prevention manager over 10 Home Depot stores in Arizona.  He worked from home but drove regularly to his stores. Home Depot offered to reimburse his mileage, but he turned it down. He thought that claiming the mileage on his return would give him a bigger refund.

COMMENT: Well, yes, as he was paying out-of-pocket for gasoline and wear-and-tear on his car. Clearly he is not a Warren Buffet successor.

Salter got laid off in 2013.

He took money out of his IRA to get through, but that is not the point of our discussion today.

He needed to file a 2013 return so he could get that tax refund, especially since he turned down the opportunity to be reimbursed.

What did he not do?

He did not file a 2013 return.

Eventually the IRS figured it out and asked for a tax return.

Salter blew it off.

The IRS prepared a “substitute for return.” You do not want the IRS to do this, by the way. The IRS will file you as single with no dependents (whether you are or not), include all your gross income and do its very best to not spot you any deductions. It is intentionally designed to maximize your tax liability.

The IRS wanted over $6 grand in tax, with all the assorted interest and penalty toppings.

Now Salter cared.

He told the IRS that he had used H&R Block software to file his return.

The IRS clarified that it had no 2013 tax return, either from H&R Block or from anyone else. Send us a copy, they said.

He did not have a copy to send. He did not have certified mail receipts or record of electronic filing. He had nothing.

Hard to persuade anyone with nothing.

Here is the Court:

We find that the petitioner did not file a return for 2013, ...”

This created a problem.

Salter wanted to claim that mileage, meaning that he needed to itemize his deductions.

OK.

Not OK. There is a tax issue.

Which is …?

Did you know that itemizing your deductions is considered a tax election?

And …?

You have to file a tax return to make the election.

Easy, you say, Salter should prepare and file a 2013 return claiming itemized deductions. Doing so is the election.

Too late. That window closed when the IRS prepared the substitute for return. The substitute is considered a return, and it did not itemize. Remember how a substitute works: income is reported at gross; deductions are grudgingly given, if given at all. 

No mileage. No deduction. No refund. Tax due.

As we said: self-inflicted wound.

Our case this time was Salter v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-29.

Can $2 Million Be An Honest Mistake?

 

It is a good idea to look over your tax return before hitting the “Send” button.

Why? Because things happen. Some prep software approximates a black box. It asks questions, you provide numbers and together they go someplace hidden from the eyes of man. Granted, most times the result is just fine. But there are those times ….

Let’s talk about Candice and Randall Busch.

They were preparing their 2017 tax return using a popular tax software, which shall remain nameless. They reached the point where the software wanted mortgage interest. Easy enough. They entered “21,201.25.”

So?

The software did not accept pennies.

This means that 21,201.25 went in as 2,120,125.

That, folks, is a lot of mortgage interest.

BTW one cannot deduct that much mortgage interest on a principal residence. Why? The mortgage interest deduction had been capped for many years as interest paid on the first $1 million of indebtedness. Let’s say someone paid $62,000 on $2 million of principal residence debt. The tax preparer should have caught this and limited the deduction as follows:

         62,000 * 1,000,000/2,000,000 = 32,000

The $1,000,000 cap was further reduced to $750,000 in 2017.

The tax Code has no intention of allowing an unlimited deduction for this type of interest.

Is it ever possible to get past the $1,000,000 (or $750,000) limitation? Well, yes, and it happens all the time. Borrow money on commercial real estate (say a strip mall) and there is no limitation. Borrow money on residential real estate - as long as it is not a principal residence - and there is no limitation. An example would be an apartment complex.  The limitation we are discussing is personal and involves debt on your house.

Back to the Busch’s.

They sound like average folk.

That mistake made their tax refund go through the roof.

They liked that answer.

They sent in the return.

The IRS flagged the return, which was not hard to do when the interest deduction was larger than the allowed debt for purposes of calculating the deduction itself.

The IRS wanted the excess refund back.

The Busch’s would do that.     

Then the IRS also wanted a heavy penalty (the accuracy-related penalty, for the home gamers).

The Busch’s said they wouldn’t do that. An exception to the accuracy-related penalty is reasonable cause, and they had reasonable cause all day long and three times on the weekend.

And what was that reasonable cause, asked the IRS.

It was an “honest mistake,” they replied.

Off to Tax Court they went.

The Busch’s represented themselves, the lingo for which is “pro se.”

The Court acknowledged that mistakes happen. One can get distracted and enter a wrong number, one can transpose, one can get surprised by what a software might do.

But that is not the mistake here.

The mistake here was failing to review the return before sending.

The biggest number on the return – literally – was that interest deduction. It hung over the form like a Big Texan 72-ounce steak on a normal-sized dinner plate.

Here is the Court:

A careful review of the return after it was prepared would most certainly have caught the error; actually, even as little as a quick glance at the return probably would have done so.”

The Busch’s got stuck with the penalty.

IRS Wants Near $9 Million Penalty From A Holocaust Survivor

 

I’ll tell you what caught my eye:

This is a tax case in which the Government alleges that Defendant Walter Schik, a Holocaust survivor, failed to file a foreign bank account reporting form with the Internal Revenue Service …, which now seeks by this action to collect an almost nine-million-dollar civil penalty assessed against him for that failure.”

There are so many things wrong with that sentence.

Let’s talk about Form TD F 90-22.1, also known as the FBAR (“Eff- Bar”). The form existed before I took my first course in accounting years ago, but it has gathered steam and interest when Treasury started to chase overseas bank accounts during the aughts. If one has a foreign account, or has authority over a foreign account, which exceeds $10,000 during the taxable year, one is required to disclose on one’s individual income tax return (on Schedule B) and file Form TD F 9-22.1 with the Treasury.

Up to this point, it is just another form to file. We are drowning in forms, so what is the big deal?

The deal is the penalties for not filing the form. Let’s separate not filing the form because you did not know you had to file from knowing you had to file but deciding not to. That second one is considered “willful” (which makes sense) and can cost you a penalty from $100,000 to 50% of the account balance at the time of violation.

This is VERY expensive money.

The IRS assessed a penalty of almost $9 million against Schik for failure to file an FBAR.

Some background:

·      Mr Schik is a Holocaust survivor.

·      His education was cut short by, how shall we say this …, being in a concentration camp.

·      After the war, he immigrated to the U.S. and became a citizen.

·      After becoming a citizen, he opened a Swiss bank account where he deposited monies recovered from relatives who were slaughtered during the Holocaust.

·      He left the monies in Switzerland as he was fearful that another Holocaust-like event could occur.

·      Schik did not touch or manage the money. That was done by his son and a Swiss money manager.

·      Schik did talk with the money manager occasionally, though.

·      By 2017 one of those Swiss accounts had over $15 million.

·      His accountant never asked Schik if he had overseas bank accounts or explained the recently heightened IRS interest in the area.

I am sympathetic with the accountant. What are the odds of having a client who is a Holocaust survivor and having over $15 million in a Swiss bank account? One could go a career. I have.

The year at issue is 2007. There is a question on the individual tax return whether one has an interest or signature authority over a foreign bank account. Schik’s accountant answered it “No.” Schik did not correct his accountant. More fairly, Schik did not even notice the question.

Wouldn’t you know that Schik’s Swiss money manager got pulled into the UBS investigation?

UBS entered into a deferred prosecution arrangement with the United States. It however had to provide identities of U.S. citizens and residents who were customers of the bank.

At which point Schik submitted a voluntary disclosure to the IRS.

Which the IRS denied.

Without an alternative, Schik submitted a late FBAR.

The IRS then slapped the 50% penalty we are talking about.

Which brings us up to speed.

The penalty requires one’s behavior to be “willful.” Not surprisingly, the word has specific meaning under the law, and the Court evaluated whether Schik’s behavior was willful.

Treasury argued that “willful” means “objectively reckless.”

Got it. Ignoring an issue to an extreme degree is the same as knowing and not caring.

Schik argued that willful means “intentional disregard.”

The difference?

Schik argued that the underlying law was opaque, long-ignored and now quickly – if somewhat capriciously – conscripted into action. He no more intentionally disregarded his tax reporting obligations than he intentionally disregarded the newest developments in cosmological galaxy formation. There was no conspiracy by hundred-year-old Holocaust survivors: he just didn’t know.

And such is tax law. Nine million dollars hangs on the meaning of a word.

The Court noted that other courts – relying on records similar to those available to it - have found willfulness.

Not good for Schik. 

However, the Court was concerned about the many countervailing factors:

·      Schik was nearly 100 years old.

·      Schik had minimal formal education.

·      Schik did not manage the money.

·      Schik did not prepare his own tax returns.

·      Schik had no idea about a disclosure requirement.

·      Schik’s accountant did not explain the disclosure requirement.

·      The question answered “No” was pre-filled by the accountant’s software and did not represent any assertion made by Schik.

The Court denied the IRS summary judgement, noting there was a substantial question of fact.

I agree.

Who will review and clarify the facts?

“The Court believes that the Parties in this case would benefit from mediation. By separate order the Court will refer the Parties to the Southern District of New York’s Mediation Program. … the assigned District Judge … may determine that a case is appropriate for mediation and may order that case to mediation, with or without the consent of the parties.”

Methinks the IRS should just have allowed the voluntary disclosure.  

Was the IRS encouraging compliance, promoting education and providing a ramp to enter/reenter the tax system? Or is this something else, something with the purpose of terrifying the next person?

Our case this time was United States of America v Walter Schik, 20-cv-02211 (MKV)

Are Minimum Required Distribution Rules Changing Again?

I wonder what is going on at the IRS when it comes to IRA minimum required distributions.

You may recall that prior law allowed for something called a “stretch” IRA.  The idea was simple, but planners and advisors pushed on it so long and so hard that Congress changed the law.

An IRA (set aside Roth IRAs for this discussion) must start distributing at some point in time. The tax Code tells you the minimum you must distribute. If you want more, well, that is up to you and the tax Code has nothing further to say.  The minimum distribution uses actuarial life expectancies in its calculation. Here is an example:

                   Age of IRA Owner            Life Expectancy

                            72                                    27.4

                            73                                    26.5

                            74                                    25.5

                            75                                    24.6                                        

Let’s say that you are 75 years old, and you have a million dollars in your IRA. Your minimum required distribution (MRD) would be:

                  $1,000,000 divided by 24.6 = $40,650

There are all kinds of ancillary rules, but let’s stay with the big picture. You have to take out at least $40,650 from your IRA.

President Trump signed the SECURE Act in late 2019 and upset the apple cart. The new law changed the minimum distribution rules for everyone, except for special types of beneficiaries (such as a surviving spouse or a disabled person).

How did the rules change?

Everybody other than the specials has to empty the IRA in or by the 10^th year following the death.

OK.

Practitioners and advisors presumed that the 10-year rule meant that one could skip MRDs for years 1 through 9 and then drain the account in year 10. It might not be the most tax-efficient thing to do, but one could.

The IRS has a publication (Publication 590-B) that addresses IRA distributions. In March, 2021 it included an example of the new 10-year rule. The example had the beneficiary pulling MRDs in years 1 through 9 (just like before) and emptying the account in year 10.

Whoa! exclaimed the planners and advisors. It appeared that the IRS went a different direction than they expected. There was confusion, tension and likely some anger.

The IRS realized the firestorm it had created and revised Publication 590-B in May with a new example. Here is what it said:

For example, if the owner dies in 2020, the beneficiary would have to fully distribute the plan by December 31, 2030. The beneficiary is allowed, but not required, to take distributions prior to that date.”

The IRS, planners and advisors were back in accord.

Now I am skimming the new Proposed Regulations. Looks like the IRS is changing the rules again.

The Regs require one to separate the beneficiaries as before into two classes: those exempt from the 10-year rule (the surviving spouse, disabled individuals and so forth) and those subject to the 10-year rule.

Add a new step: for the subject-to group and divide them further by whether the deceased had started taking MRDs prior to death. If the decedent had, then there is one answer. If the decedent had not, then there is a different answer.

Let’s use an example to walk through this.

Clark (age 74) and Lois (age 69) are killed in an accident. Their only child (Jon) inherits their IRA accounts.

Jon is not a disabled individual or any of the other exceptions, so he will be subject to the 10-year rule.

One parent (Clark) was old enough to have started MRDs.

The other parent (Lois) was not old enough to have started MRDs.

Jon is going to see the effect of the proposed new rules.

Since Lois had not started MRDs, Jon can wait until the 10^th year before withdrawing any money. There is no need for MRDS because Lois herself had not started MRDs.

OK.

However, Clark had started MRDs. This means that Jon must take MRDs beginning the year following Clark’s death (the same rule as before the SECURE Act). The calculation is also the same as the old stretch IRA: Jon can use his life expectancy to slow down the required distributions – well, until year 10, of course.

Jon gets two layers of rules for Clark’s IRA:

·      He has to take MRDs every year, and

·      He has to empty the account on or by the 10^th year following death

There is a part of me that gets it: there is some underlying rhyme or reason to the proposed rules.

However, arbitrarily changing rules that affect literally millions of people is not effective tax administration.

Perhaps there is something technical in the statute or Code that mandates this result. As a tax practitioner in mid-March, this is not my time to investigate the issue.  

The IRS is accepting comments on the proposed Regulations until May 25.

I suspect they will hear some.