The Problem-Child Client: Recidivist

 

It happens: the problem-child client.

Let’s talk about one type of problem child: the recidivist.

Thomas Kelly was a securities broker in New York City. We have three tax years at play - 2013 to 2015. Thomas had not been filing his returns or paying his taxes.

On December 22, 2017, he filed 2013, reporting adjusted gross income of $1.9 million. The tax was approximately $690 grand.

A few days later (December 26, 2017) he filed 2014, reporting AGI of almost $1.5 million and tax of approximately $515 grand.

Keeping the streak going, on January 17, 2018, he filed 2015, reporting AGI of $1.2 million and tax over $400 grand.

Got it. Thomas fell out of the system and was now trying to get back in. Maybe there had been familial or medical setbacks. He was trying to correct his mistakes. Everybody likes a comeback story.

Let’s jump forward over a year and a half to September 2019. Thomas owed the IRS over $2.5 million for years 2013 through 2015.

Late file penalties. Late pay penalties. Interest on everything. Yep, it gets expensive.

The IRS issued three notices:

* Two for liens

* Another for a levy

Thomas requested a CDP (Collection Due Process) hearing. He was after three things:

* He wanted a payment plan

* He wanted withdrawal of the liens

* He wanted abatement of the penalties

Got it. So far this is standard stuff.

The hearing was scheduled for March 2020.

Then COVID happened.

The hearing was held-up until February 2021.

At the hearing …

FIRST, Thomas wanted to pay $30,000 per month.

Problem: Thomas owed enough that $30 grand would not pay his taxes in full before the statute of limitations played out.

CTG: This is a called a partial pay plan. There are requirements in the Internal Revenue Manual (IRM), and one is that the taxpayer be current on his/her other taxes. Thomas owed approximately $250 grand on his 2019 taxes.

The IRS did not want to include 2019 in his payment plan. In addition, the IRS did not see payments on his 2020 estimated taxes.

CTG: Borrow $250 grand and a bit more for those estimated taxes, Thomas. Battle, war, and all that.

It makes sense if you think about it. Thomas was asking the IRS to accept less than a dollar-on-a-dollar for past taxes. He was then asking the same deal for his current taxes. The IRS was not going to agree to this.

Thomas dug in his heels and wanted the IRS to include 2019 and 2020 in the payment plan.

The IRS of course didn’t.

Thomas complained that the IRS settlement officer abused his discretion in denying him a payment plan.

CTG: Thomas, shut up.

SECOND, Thomas wanted the liens removed.

CTG: This one is going to be tricky. The IRS is reluctant to remove a lien, especially once you get to those dollar levels.

Thomas argued that the IRS Settlement Officer abused his discretion in refusing to withdraw the liens.

CTG: Thomas … SHUT UP!

Thomas next argued that releasing the lien would facilitate his being able to pay the tax. The lien would affect his licensing, and that effect could negatively impact his earning power.

CTG: Nice segue. We now need to go from “could” to “would,” as we need to persuade skeptical parties. Is there a cite from governing body rules and regulations we can copy and paste? Can you get a letter from your employer? We need something more than our word, as that is considered self-serving.

Nope, says Thomas. My word is good enough.

CTG: You are not taking advice well, Thomas.

THIRD, Thomas wanted the penalties abated. He had two arguments.

CTG: Bring it.

The first was that he qualified for first time abatement (FTA).

CTG: OK, but that will address 2013 only. You won’t be able to use it again for the other years.

FTA is bread-and-butter. If you have been clean for the preceding 3 years, the IRS can waive the penalty. The FTA applies to a limited number of penalties, but the good news is that limited number included Thomas’s specific penalty.

Good job, Thomas.

However, the IRS pointed out that Thomas had penalties for 2012. The … tax … year … immediately … preceding 2013.

CTG: Thomas, did you even google what FTA is?

Thomas had a second argument: he had reasonable cause.

CTG: OK, Thomas, sway me.

His wife started spending money like madwoman in 2007. This caused all matters of marital and financial problems. She filed for divorce in 2015.

CTG: Thomas …

The attorney fees were crushing. He was having financial hardship …

CTG: Thomas …

… emotional problems …

CTG: Thomas …

… battling depression.

CTG: Thomas, the Court is going to want to know how your divorce proceedings – in 2015 – affected your tax responsibilities for 2013 and 2014.

Tax Court: Yes, Thomas, please tell us.

Here are a few trenchant comments by the Court:

He successfully conducted his securities business during 2013 – 2015, earning more than $1 million annually …”

… he has a history of tax noncompliance, dating as far back as 2009.”

His allegations of financial hardship at the relevant times thus seem questionable.”

CTG: We are losing them here, Thomas.

Tax Court:

In any event, financial hardship ‘generally does not affect a person’s ability to file.’”

CTG: Going…

Tax Court:

At the time of the CDP hearing petitioner’s outstanding liabilities for 2013 - 2015 exceeded $2.5 million. Those liabilities arose from his repeated failure to file returns and pay tax, despite earning between $1 million and $2 million annually. During the hearing he refused to pay even his (comparatively modest) estimated tax liability for 2020.

CTG: Gone.

Yes, the IRS sours with a recidivist. I have seen the IRS dig in when they see someone failing to file, never paying estimates, extending with no payment, repetitively filing returns with significant balances due. This is not a matter of knowing how to navigate the IRS. One can navigate like Magellan and not get there.

Thomas could have - I believe - gotten a partial pay. Perhaps he needed to borrow to pay 2019 and 2020, but: so what? He had the earning power, and borrowing would have facilitated the (much more significant) $2.5 million at play for 2013 through 2015.

He had a shot at releasing the liens if he could show (likely) injury to his earning power. He had to show some cause, though, otherwise everyone would make this argument and the IRS would never be able to lien.   

He was hosed on penalty abatement, however. Recidivist.

He certainly did not need to fling charges of abusing discretion. The Settlement Officer was just following IRM guidelines, which Thomas (or his tax advisor) could have double-checked at any time.   

Our case this time was Thomas E Kelly v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-73.

IRAs and Nonqualified Compensation Plans

Can an erroneous Form 1099 save you from tax and penalties?

It’s an oddball question, methinks. I anticipate the other side of that see-saw is whether one knew, or should have known, better.

Let’s look at the Clair Couturier case.

Clair is a man, by the way. His wife’s is named Vicki.

Clair used to be the president of Noll Manufacturing (Noll).

Clair and Noll had varieties of deferred compensation going on: 

(1)   He owned shares in the company employee stock ownership program (ESOP).

(2)   He had a deferred compensation arrangement (his “Compensation Continuation Agreement”) wherein he would receive monthly payments of $30 grand when he retired.

(3)   He participated in an incentive stock option plan.

(4)   He also participated in another that sounds like a phantom stock arrangement or its cousin. The plan flavor doesn’t matter; no matter what flavor you select Clair is being served nonqualified deferred compensation in a cone.

Sounds to me like Noll was taking care of Clair.

There was a corporate reorganization in 2004.

Someone wanted Clair out.

COMMENT: Let’s talk about an ESOP briefly, as it is germane to what happened here. AN ESOP is a retirement plan. Think of it as 401(k), except that you own stock in the company sponsoring the ESOP and not mutual funds at Fidelity or Vanguard. In this case, Noll sponsored the ESOP, so the ESOP would own Noll stock. How much Noll stock would it own? It can vary. It doesn’t have to be 100%, but it might be. Let’s say that it was 100% for this conversation. In that case, Clair would not own any Noll stock directly, but he would own a ton of stock indirectly through the ESOP.

If someone wanted him out, they would have to buy him out through the ESOP.

Somebody bought out Clair for $26 million.

COMMENT: I wish.

The ESOP sent Clair a Form 1099 reporting a distribution of $26 million. The 1099 indicated that he rolled-over this amount to an IRA.

Clair reported the roll-over on his 2004 tax return. It was just reporting; there is no tax on a roll-over unless someone blows it.

QUESTION: Did someone blow it?

Let’s go back. Clair had four pieces to his deferred compensation, of which the ESOP was but one. What happened to the other three?

Well, I suppose the deal might have been altered. Maybe Clair forfeited the other three. If you pay me enough, I will go away.

Problem:

         § 409 Qualifications for tax credit employee stock ownership plans

So?

        (p)  Prohibited allocations of securities in an S corporation

                      (4)  Disqualified person

Clair was a disqualified person to the ESOP. He couldn’t just make-up whatever deal he wanted. Well, technically he could, but the government reserved the right to drop the hammer.

The government dropped the hammer.

The Department of Labor got involved. The DOL referred the case to the IRS Employee Plan Division. The IRS was looking for prohibited transactions.

Found something close enough.

Clair was paid $26 million for his stock.

The IRS determined that the stock was worth less than a million.

QUESTION: What about that 1099 for the rollover?

ANSWER: You mean the 1099 that apparently was never sent to the IRS?

What was the remaining $25 million about?

It was about those three nonqualified compensation plans.

Oh, oh.

This is going to cost.

Why?

Because only funds in a qualified plan can be rolled to an IRA.

Funds in a nonqualified plan cannot.

Clair rolled $26 million. He should have rolled less than a million.

Wait. In what year did the IRS drop the hammer?

In 2016.

Wasn’t that outside the three-year window for auditing Clair’s return?

Yep.

So Clair was scot-free?

Nope.

The IRS could not adjust Clair’s income tax for 2004. It could however tag him with a penalty for overfunding his IRA by $25 million.

Potato, poetawtoe. Both would clock out under the statute of limitations, right?

Nope.

There is an excise tax (normal folk call it a “penalty”) in the Code for overfunding an IRA. The tax is 6 percent. That doesn’t sound so bad, until you realize that the tax is 6 percent per year until you take the excess contribution out of the IRA.

Clair never took anything out of his IRA.

This thing has been compounding at 6 percent per year for … how many years?

The IRS wanted around $8.5 million.

The Tax Court agreed.

Clair owed.

Big.

Our case this time was Couturier v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-69.

Can A Business Start Before Having Revenue?

 

It is one of my least favorite issues: when does a business start?

The reason is that expenses incurred before the start-up date are considered either organizational or start-up expenses and cannot be immediately deducted. The IRS allows a small spot (of $5,000) and expenses over that amount are to be amortized over 15 years.

It used to be five years. The issue was less of a blood sport back then.

For many of us, the start-up date is easy: it is when you open your doors to customers or clients. Let’s say you are a chiropractor. Your start-up date is when the office opens. What if you do not have a patient that day? Same answer: it is the day you open the doors.

Let’s kick it up a notch.

Say you open a restaurant. When is your start date?

The day you have first serve customers, right?

Yes, with a twist. Many restaurants have a soft opening, which is a seating for a limited number of people (think family, friends and media critics) to test service and the kitchen. This might be days or weeks before the actual grand opening – that is, when doors open to the general public.  

Many tax accountants – me included – consider a restaurant’s soft opening to be the start date.

The reason we want an earlier rather than a later date is to start deducting expenses. If you are reaching into your pocket or borrowing money to pay rent, utilities, promotion and staff, you want a tax deduction now. You might consider me to be crazy man Michael were I to talk about deducting over 15 years.

Let’s kick it up another notch. Let’s talk about a web-based business.

Gregg Kellett graduated from college in 2002 and opened a website. He went corporate in 2007, and in 2011 he moved to Bloomberg, a publisher of legal and business information. While there he saw an opportunity to better aggregate and access online demographic, social and economic data. If he could pull it off, he could offer a more user-friendly interface and make a couple of bucks in the process.

So in 2013 he bought a website (vizala.com). He formed a company by the same name. He hired remote computer engineers to develop features he wanted in the website. They finished core work in March 2015 and resolved bugs through September 2015. An example of a “bug” was an interactive table that would not presently correctly in the Firefox browser.

Kellett figured to make money at least four ways:

(1)  Selling advertising space

(2)  Implementing a paywall

(3)  Selling personalized charts and other information

(4)  Licensing data

He did not pursue any of those strategies during 2015.

However, he did deduct approximately $26 grand on his 2015 return.

He also did not earn any revenue until 2019.

Sure enough, the IRS disallowed the $26 grand because Kellett was not in an “active” trade or business. They wanted him to deduct the expenses over (almost) the same period as putting a kid though grade school and then college.

Off to Tax Court.

If we pull back to the general rule – the date of first revenues – this is going to hurt.

But the website was available by September 2015. It wasn’t rocking like Netflix upon release of the 2022 season’s second half of Stranger Things, but it was available.

The Court wanted to know what happened between 2015 and 2019.

Kellett explained that maximizing his long-term profit potential required building trust among users. After that would come the advertisers. He started building trust by promoting the website to over a hundred universities and professional organizations. This was enough work that he hired a marketing professional to assist him. The work paid-off, as about 50% on the institutions added Vizala to their lists of research databases. 

The Court understood what he did. The website was available by September 2015. It was not all it could be as Kellett had plans for its long-term profitability, but that did not gainsay that the website was available. Considering that the business was the website, that meant that the business also started in September 2015. Expenses before that date were startup expenses. Expenses after that date were immediately deductible.

Revenues did not play into the decision, fortunately.

It was the website version of the chiropractor opening his/her office, albeit with no patients on the first day.

Kellett won, but it cost a visit to Tax Court.

Our case this time was Kellett v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2022-62.

You Received An IRS CP2000 Notice

I read a considerable amount on a routine basis. It might be fairer to say that I skim, changing it to a read if I think that something might apply here at Galactic Command.

I came across something recently that made me scoff out loud.

Somebody somewhere was talking about never receiving an IRS CP2000 notice again.

Yeah, right.

What is a CP2000?

You know it as the computer match. The IRS cross-checks your numbers against their numbers. If there is a difference – and the difference is more than the cost of a stamp – their computers will generate a CP2000 notice.

How does the IRS get its numbers?

Easy. Think of all the tax reporting forms that you have received over the years, such as:

W-2 (your job)   

1099-INT (interest from a bank)

1099-DIV (dividends from a mutual fund)

1099-SA (distribution from an HSA)

1099-B (proceeds from selling stock)

It is near endless, and every year or so Congress and/or the IRS requires additional reporting on something. There is already a new one for 2022: the minimum threshold for payment card reporting has been reduced from $20,000 to $600. Think Venmo or Pay Pal and you are there.

If the IRS has information you didn’t report: bam! Receive a CP2000.

It happens all the time. You closed a bank account but forgot about the part of the year that it did exist.  You traded on Robinhood for a couple of weeks, lost money and tried to forget about it. You reimbursed yourself medical expenses from your HSA.   

The common denominator: you forgot to tell your tax preparer.

We get a ton of these.

Then your tax preparer might have caused it.

Maybe you did a 60-day roll on an IRA. Your preparer needs to code the distribution a certain way. Flub it and get a CP2000.

These you try to never repeat, as you are just making work for yourself.

Is this thing an audit?

Technically no, but you might still wind-up owing money.

The notice is proposing to make changes to your return. It is giving you a chance to respond. It is not a bill, at least not yet, but ignore the notice and it will become a bill.

The thing about these notices is that no one at the IRS reviews them before they go out. Yours are the first set of eyes to look upon them, and your preparer the second when you send the notice to him or her. You there have one of the biggest frustrations many practitioners have: the IRS sends these things out like candy; many are wrong and would be detected if the IRS even bothered. Attach an explanation to your return in the hope of cutting-off a notice? Puhleeze.

You really need to respond to a CP2000. I have lost track of how many clients over the years have blown these notices off, coming to see me years later because some mysterious tax debt has been siphoning their tax refunds. Combine this with the statute of limitations – remember, three years to file or amend – and you can be digging a hole for yourself.

If you agree with the notice, then responding is easy: check the box that says you agree. The IRS will happily send you a bill. Heck, don’t even bother to reply. They will send you the same bill.

If you disagree, then it can be more complicated.

If the matter is relatively easy – say an HSA distribution – I might attach the required tax form to my written response, explaining that the form was overlooked when filing.

If the matter is more complicated – say different types of mismatches – then I might change my answer. My experience – especially in recent years – is that the IRS is doing a substandard job with correspondence requiring one to think. They have repetitively forced me into Appeals and unnecessary procedural work.  My response to more complicated CP2000 notices? I am increasingly filing amended returns. Mind you, the IRS DOES NOT want me to do this. Neither do I, truthfully, but the IRS must first give me reason to trust its work. I am not there right now.

You can fax your response, fortunately.

You might try to call the IRS, but I suspect that will turn out poorly. Shame, as that would be the easiest way to request additional time to reply to the CP2000.

Whatever you do, you have 30 days. The days start counting beginning with the date of the letter, so mail delays can cost you.

Is the IRS gunning for you?

Remember: no one at the IRS has even looked at the notice you received.

 

The Sum Of The Parts Is Less Than The Whole

 

I am looking at a case involving valuations.

The concept starts easily enough:

·      Let’s say that your family owns a business.  

·      You personally own 20% of the business.

·      The business has shown average profits of $1 million per year for years.

·      Altria is paying dividends of over 7%, which is generous in today’s market. You round that off to 8%, considering that rate fair to both you and me.

·      The multiple would therefore be 100% divided by 8% = 12.5.   

·      You propose a sales price of $1,000,000 times 12.5 times 20% = $2.5 million.  

Would I pay you that?

Doubt it.

Why?

Let’s consider a few things.

·      It depends whether 8 percent is a fair discount rate.  Considering that I could buy Altria and still collect over 7%, I might decide that a skinny extra 1% just isn’t worth the potential headache.

·      I can sell Altria at any time. I cannot sell your stock at any time, as it is not publicly-traded. I may as well buy a timeshare.

·      I am reasonably confident that Altria will pay me quarterly dividends, because they have done so for decades. Has your company ever paid dividends? If so, has it paid dividends reliably? If so, how will the family feel about continuing that dividend policy when a non-family member shows up at the meetings? If the family members work there, they might decide to increase their salaries, stop the dividends (as their bumped-up salaries would replace the lost dividends) and just starve me out.

·      Let’s say that the family in fact wants me gone. What recourse do I – as a 20% owner – have? Not much, truthfully. Own 20% of Apple and you rule the world. Own 20% of a closely-held that wants you gone and you might wish you had never become involved.

This is the thought process that goes into valuations.

What are valuations used for?

A ton of stuff:

·      To buy or sell a company

·      To determine the taxable consequence of nonqualified deferred compensation

·      To determine the amount of certain gifts

·      To value certain assets in an estate

What creates the tension in valuation work is determining what owning a piece of something is worth – especially if that piece does not represent control and cannot be easily sold. Word: reasonable people can reasonably disagree on this number.

Let’s look at the Estate of Miriam M. Warne.

Ms Warne (and hence the estate) owned 100% of Royal Gardens, a mobile home park. Royal Gardens was valued – get this - at $25.6 million on the estate tax return.

Let’s take a moment:

Q: Would our discussion of discounts (that is, the sum of the parts is less than the whole) apply here?

A: No, as the estate owned 100% - that is, it owned the whole.

The estate in turn made two charitable donations of Royal Gardens.

The estate took a charitable deduction of $25.6 million for the two donations.

The IRS said: nay, nay.

Why?

The sum of the parts is less than the whole.

One donation was 75% of Royal Gardens.  

You might say: 50% is enough to control. What is the discount for?

Here’s one reason: how easy would it be to sell less-than-100% of a mobile home park?

The other donation was 25%.

Yea, that one has it all: lack of control, lack of marketability and so on.

The attorneys messed up.

They brought an asset into the estate at $25.6 million.

The estate then gave it away.

But it got a deduction of only $21.4 million.

Seems to me the attorneys stranded $4.2 million in the estate.

Our case this time was the Estate of Miriam M. Warne, T.C. Memo 2021-17.

Qualifying As A Real Estate Professional

 

The first thing I thought when I read the opinion was: this must have been a pro se case.

“Pro se”” has a specific meaning in Tax Court: it means that a taxpayer is not represented by a professional. Technically, this is not accurate, as I could accompany someone to Tax Court and they be considered pro se, but the definition works well enough for our discussion.

There is a couple (the Sezonovs) who lived in Ohio. The husband (Christian) owned an HVAC company and ran it as a one-man gang for the tax years under discussion.

In April 2013 they bought rental property in Florida. In November 2013 they bought a second. They were busy managing the properties:

·      They advertised and communicated with prospective renters.

·      They would clean between renters or arrange for someone to do so.

·      They hired contractors for repairs to the second property.

·      They filed a lawsuit against the second condo association over a boat slip that should have been transferred with the property.

One thing they did not do was to keep a contemporaneous log of what they did and when they did it. Mind you, tax law does not require you to write it down immediately, but it does want you to make a record within a reasonable period. The Court tends to be cynical when someone creates the log years after the fact.

The case involves the Sezonovs trying to deduct rental losses. There are two general ways you can coax a deductible real estate rental loss onto your return:

(1) Your income is between a certain range, and you actively participate in the property. The band is between $1 and $150,000 for marrieds, and the Code will allow one to deduct up to $25 grand. The $25 grand evaporates as income climbs from $100 grand to $150 grand.

(2)  One is a real estate professional.

Now, one does not need to be a full-time broker or agent to qualify as a real estate professional for tax purposes. In fact, one can have another job and get there, but it probably won’t be easy.

Here is what the Code wants:

·      More than one-half of a person’s working hours for the year occur in real estate trades or businesses; and

·      That person must rack-up at least 750 hours of work in all real estate trades or businesses.

Generally speaking, much of the litigation in this area has to do with the first requirement. It is difficult (but not impossible) to get to more-than-half if one is working outside the real estate industry itself. It would be near impossible for me to get there as a practicing tax CPA, for example.

One more thing: one person in the marriage must meet both of the above tests. There is no sharing.

The Sezonovs were litigating their 2013 and 2014 tax years.

First order of business: the logs.

Which Francine created in 2019 and 2020.

Here is what Francine produced:

                                     Christian              Francine

2013 hours                        405                      476                

2014 hours                         26                        80                 

Wow.

They never should have gone to Court.

They could not meet one of the first two rules: at least 750 hours.

From everything they did, however, it appears to me that they would have been actively participating in the Florida activities. This is a step down from “materially participating” as a real estate pro, but it is something. Active participation would have qualified them for that $25-grand-but-phases-out tax break if their income was less than $150 grand. The fact that they went to Court tells me that their income was higher than that.

So, they tried to qualify through the second door: as a real estate professional.

They could not do it.

And I have an opinion derived from over three decades in the profession: the Court would not have allowed real estate pro status even if the Sezonovs had cleared the 750-hour requirement.

Why?

Because the Court would have been cynical about a contemporaneous log for 2013 and 2014 created in 2019 and 2020. The Court did not pursue the point because the Sezonovs never got past the first hurdle.

Our case this time was Sezonov v Commissioner. T.C. Memo 2022-40.

Reorganizing A Passive Activity

 

I am looking at a case that stacks a couple of different tax rules atop another and then asks: are we there yet?

Let’s talk about it.

The first is something called the continuity of business doctrine. Here we wade into the waters of corporate taxation and - more specifically - corporate reorganizations. Let’s take an easy example:

Corporation A wants to split into two corporations: corporation B and corporation C.

Why? It can be any number of things. Maybe management has decided that one of the business activities is not keeping up with the other, bringing down the stock price as a result. Maybe two families own corporation A, and the two families now have very strong and differing feelings about where to go and how to get there. Corporate reorganizations are relatively common.

The IRS wants to see an active trade or business in corporations A, B and C before allowing the reorganization. Why? Because reorganizations can be (and generally are) tax-free, and the IRS wants to be sure that there is a business reason for the reorganization – and avoiding tax does not count as a business reason.

Let me give you an example.

Corporation A is an exterminating company. Years ago it bought Tesla stock for pennies on the dollar, and those shares are now worth big bucks. It wants to reorganize into corporation B – which will continue the exterminating activity – and corporation C – which will hold Tesla stock.

Will this fly?

Probably not.

The continuity of business doctrine wants to see five years of a trade or business in all parties involved. Corporation A and B will not have a problem with this, but corporation C probably will. Why? Well, C is going to have to argue that holding Tesla stock rises to the level of a trade or business. But does it? I point out that Yahoo had a similar fact pattern when it wanted to unload $32 billion of Alibaba stock a few years ago. The IRS refused to go along, and the Yahoo attorneys had to redesign the deal.

Now let’s stack tax rules.

You have a business.

To make the stack work, the business will be a passthrough: a partnership or an S corporation. The magic to the passthrough is that the entity itself does not pay tax. Rather its tax numbers are sliced and diced and allocated among its owners, each of whom includes his/her slice on his/her individual return.

Let’s say that the passthrough has a loss.

Can you show that loss on your individual return?

We have shifted (smooth, eh?) to the tax issue of “materially participating” and “passively nonparticipating” in a business.

Yep, we are talking passive loss rules.

The concept here is that one should not be allowed to use “passively nonparticipating” losses to offset “materially participating” income. Those passive losses instead accumulate until there is passive income to sponge them up or until one finally disposes of the passive activity altogether. Think tax shelters and you go a long way as to what Congress was trying to do here.

Back to our continuity of business doctrine.

Corporation A has two activities. One is a winner and the other is a loser. Historically A has netted the two, reporting the net number as “materially participating” on the shareholder K-1 and carried on.

Corporation A reorganizes into B and C.

B takes the winner.

C takes the loser.

The shareholder has passive losses elsewhere on his/her return. He/she REALLY wants to treat B as “passively nonparticipating.” Why? Because it would give him/her passive income to offset those passive losses loitering on his/her return.

But can you do this?

Enter another rule:

A taxpayer is considered to material participate in an activity if the taxpayer materially participated in the activity for any five years during the immediately preceding ten taxable years.

On first blush, the rule is confusing, but there is a reason why it exists.

Say that someone has a profitable “materially participating” activity. Meanwhile he/she is accumulating substantial “passively nonparticipating” losses. He/she approaches me as a tax advisor and says: help.

Can I do anything?

Maybe.

What would that something be?

I would have him/her pull back (if possible) his/her involvement in the profitable activity. In fact, I would have him/her pull back so dramatically that the activity is no longer “materially participating.” We have transmuted the activity to “passively nonparticipating.”

I just created passive income. Tax advisors gotta advise.

Can’t do this, though. Congress thought of this loophole and shut it down with that five-of-the-last-ten-years rule.

This gets us to the Rogerson case.

Rogerson owned and was very involved with an aerospace company for 40 years. Somewhere in there he decided to reorganize the company along product lines.

He now had three companies where he previously had one.

He reported two as materially participating. The third he treated as passively nonparticipating.

Nickels to dollars that third one was profitable. He wanted the rush of passive income. He wanted that passive like one wants Hawaiian ice on a scorching hot day.

And the IRS said: No.

Off to Tax Court they went.

Rogerson’s argument was straightforward: the winner was a new activity. It was fresh-born, all a-gleaming under an ascendent morning sun.

The Court pointed out the continuity of business doctrine: five years before and five after. The activity might be a-gleaming, but it was not fresh-born.

Rogerson tried a long shot: he had not materially participated in that winner prior to the reorganization. The winner had just been caught up in the tide by his tax preparers. How they shrouded their inscrutable dark arts from prying eyes! Oh, if he could do it over again ….

The Court made short work of that argument: by your hand, sir, not mine. If Rogerson wanted a different result, he should have done - and reported - things differently.

Our case this time was Rogerson v Commissioner, TC Memo 2022-49.