Losing A Casualty Loss

 

I have stayed away from talking about casualty losses.

To be fair, one needs to distinguish business casualty losses from personal casualty losses. Business casualties are still deductible under the Code. Personal casualties are not. This change occurred with the Tax Cut and Jobs Act of 2017 and is tax law until 2025, when much of it expires.

This is the tax law that did away with office-in-home deductions, for example. Great timing given that COVID would soon have multitudes working from home.

It also did away with personal casualty losses, with an exception for presidentially - declared disaster areas.

Have someone steal your personal laptop. No casualty loss. Accident with your personal car? No casualty loss. Lost your house during the storms and tornados in western Tennessee at the end of March 2023? That would be a casualty loss because there was a presidential declaration.

I consider it terrible tax law, but Congress was primarily concerned about finding money.  

I am reading a case that involves casualty losses. Two, in fact. The Court included several humorous flourishes in its decision.

Let’s go over it.

Thomas Richey and his wife Maureen Cleary bought a second home in Stone Harbor on Cape May in the south of New Jersey. The house was on the waterfront with access to the open ocean. They also bought a 40-foot boat.

Sounds nice.

In 2017 storm Stella hit.

Richey and Cleary claimed casualty losses totaling over $820,000 on their 2017 tax return.

That will catch attention.

Here is the Court:

Such a large loss - one that caused them to reduce their adjusted gross income of more than $850,000 to a taxable income of zero – bobbed into the Commissioner’s view, and he selected their return for audit.”

The Commissioner did more than select the return; he denied the casualty loss deduction altogether.

Richey and Cleary petitioned the Tax Court.

Yep. Had to.

Whereas they lived in Maryland (remember: New Jersey was their second home), they petitioned the Court for trial in Los Angeles.

I do not get the why. Very little upside. Possible massive downside.

We added the case to one of our trial calendars for Los Angeles, but on the first day of that session neither petitioner showed up.”

Uh, Richey …?!

We postponed trial for a day to enable Richey to testify via Zoom.”

Richey explained that he learned about the trial only a week before, and even then, no one gave him specific details.

We do not find this credible ….”

This could have started better. 

The couple’s case began taking on water right at the start…”

The Court seemed amused.

Back to business, Richey. Let’s first establish that a casualty occurred.

He testified that he had taken pictures of the damage to both boat and home on his phone shortly after the storm.”

Good.

He explained, however, that a later software update to his phone deleted them.”

Seriously?

That left him to introduce only photographs of the house taken … nearly a year after the storm hit and after reconstruction had already begun.”

A year? Were you that busy?

These photographs depict no visible damage other than that which one might see at any construction site, and we could see nothing that showed damage that we could specifically attribute to the storm. “

Richey, I have a question for you.

… we did not find Richey’s testimony, standing alone, credible on this point.”

Have you seen John Wick?

As for the boat, the couple introduces a photograph of what the boat looked like before the storm, but nothing to show what it looked like afterwards. The couple also gave us no receipts for any boat repairs.”

Tell me the truth: did you do something to this judge’s dog?

Whom are we to believe?”

Richey, this is legal-speak for “we do not believe you.”

OK, we are going to have to lean double hard on the appraisals. Those involve third parties, so maybe we can get the Court to back off a bit.

Richey and Cleary did not get an appraisal of their own home valuing it before and after the storm.”

And may I ask why, Richey?

Richey instead consulted a real-estate agent who provided them with Multiple Listing Service (MLS) printouts of other people’s homes. This is a problem for many different reasons.”

You think?

The first … is that he didn’t talk to this agent until after the audit had begun.”

I have an idea, Richey, but it’s a long shot.

It is not impossible for a homeowner to conduct an appraisal himself …”

Richey, go improv. You live in Cape May. You know the prices. You know the damage the storm wrought. Make the Court believe you. Sell it.

They also produced no evidence of their awareness of market conditions in Stone Harbor. What we got were photographs of MLS printouts.”

You are a man of commitment and sheer will, Richey.

We infer from Richey’s having to reach out to an agent to give him such comparables an unspoken admission that he is not qualified to conduct an adequate appraisal on his own.”

I am familiar with the parlance, Richey.

If the absence of proof of damage causes the couple’s case to founder, the absence of proof on valuing that damage causes it to sink altogether.”

Well, that’s that. Maybe we can get something on the boat.

Richey and Cleary fare no better on the loss they claim for their boat.”

Richey, walk out of here with your pride intact.

All these attacks by the Commissioner have picked completely clean the flesh of their claimed deduction.”

Richey, just walk out of here.

Richey’s first mistake was scheduling a Tax Court hearing in Los Angeles. That led to the disastrous failure-to-show, which clearly angered the Court. The Court felt they were being lied to, and they never relented. The lack of an appraisal – while not necessarily having to be fatal – was fatal in this case. Richey was unable to persuade the Court that he had the experience or expertise to substitute for an appraisal.    

Sometimes the Court will carry water for a petitioner who is underprepared. We have reviewed a couple of these cases before, but that beneficent result presupposes the Court likes the person. That was not a factor here.

Our case this time was Richey and Cleary v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2023-43.

Blowing Up A Charitable Remainder Trust

I was helping a friend (and fellow CPA) with a split-interest trust this busy season.

Let’s review the tax jargon in this area.

A split-interest means that there are (at least) two beneficiaries to the trust, one of which is a charity.

There are two main types of split-interest trusts:

(1)  The charity gets use of the trust assets first, after which the assets go to the noncharitable beneficiaries.

This sounds a bit odd, but it can work with the right asset(s) funding the trust. Let’s use an example. Say that you own a modest suburban strip mall. You have a solid tenant or two, providing reliable cash flow. Then you have a theater which barely survived COVID, and that only with major rent concessions.

This might be an excellent asset for a charitable lead. Why? First, you have reliable cash flow to support the annuity to the charity. Second, you have an underperforming asset (the theater) which is likely to outperform (whether as a theater or as something else) during the term of the trust.

The tax calculations for a lead use IRS-published interest rates. If you can fund the lead using assets with greater earning power than the IRS interest rate, you can leverage the math to your advantage.

How? Let’s say that the IRS expects you to earn 4 percent. You are confident you can earn 8 percent. You design the lead so that the amount “expected” to remain after the charitable term is $100. Why even bother with it for $100? Because the IRS is running the numbers at 4%, but you know the numbers are closer to 8%. You are confident there will be assets there when the charitable term is done, even though the IRS formula says there won’t be.

Your gift tax on this? Whatever tax is on $100. What if there is a million dollars there when the charitable term is done? Again, the gift is $100. It is a wonky but effective way to transfer assets to beneficiaries while keeping down estate and gift taxes.

(2) There is another split-interest trust where the noncharitable beneficiary(ies) get use of the assets first, after which the remainder goes to charity.

Once again, the math uses IRS-provided interest rates.

If you think about it, however, you want this math to break in a different direction from a lead trust. In a lead, you want the leftover going to the noncharitable beneficiary(ies) to be as close to zero as possible.

With a remainder, you want the leftover to be as large as possible. Why? Because the larger the leftover, the larger the charitable deduction. The larger the charitable deduction the smaller the gift. The smaller the gift, the smaller the estate and gift tax.

You would correctly guess that advisors would lean to a lead or remainder depending on whether interest rates were rising or falling.  

What is a common context for a remainder? Say you are charitably inclined, but you do not have Bezos-level money. You want to hold on to your money as long as possible, but you also want to donate. You might reach out to your alma mater (say the University of Kentucky) and ask about a charitable remainder trust. You receive an annuity for a defined period. UK agrees because it knows it is getting a donation (that is, the remainder) sometime down the road.

Are there twists and quirks with these trusts? Of course. It is tax law, after all.

Here is one.

Melvine Atkinson (MA) died in 1993 at the age of 97. Two years prior, she had funded a charitable remainder trust with almost $4 million. The remainder was supposed to pay MA approximately $50 grand a quarter.

I wish I had those problems.

Problem: the remainder never paid MA anything.

Let’s see: 7 quarters at $50 grand each. The remainder failed to pay MA approximately $350 grand before she passed away.

There were secondary beneficiaries stepping-in after MA’s death but before the remainder went to charity. The trust document provided that the secondary beneficiaries were to reimburse the trust for their allocable share of federal estate taxes on MA’s estate.

Of course, someone refused to agree.

It got ugly.

The estate paid that someone $667 grand to go away.

The estate now did not have enough money to pay its administrative costs plus estate tax.     

The IRS was zero amused with this outcome.

It would be necessary to invade the charitable remainder to make up the shortfall.

But how would the IRS invade?

Simple.

(1)  The remainder failed to pay MA her annuity while she was alive.

(2)  A remainder is required to pay its annuity. The annuity literally drives the math to the thing.

(3)  This failure meant that the trust lost its “split interest” status. It was now just a regular trust.

a.    This also meant that any remainder donation to charity also went away.

MA’s remainder trust was just a trust. This just-a-trust provided the estate with funds to pay administrative expenses as well as estate taxes. Further, there was no need to reduce available cash by the pending donation to charity … because there was no donation to charity.

My friend was facing an operational failure with a split-interest trust he was working with this busy season. His issue with not with failure to make distributions, but rather with another technical requirement in the Code. I remember him asking: what is the worst possible outcome?

Yep, becoming just-a-trust.

Our case this time was Estate of Melvine B Atkinson v Commissioner, 115 T.C. No. 3.

Renting a Home Office To An Employer

A client asked about the home office deduction last week.

This deduction has lost much of its punch with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act of 2017. The reason is that employee home office deductions are a miscellaneous itemized deduction, and most miscellaneous itemized deductions have been banned for the next two-plus years. 

The deduction still exists for self-employeds, however, including partners in a partnership or members in an LLC. Technically there is one more hoop for partners and members, but let’s skip that for now.

Say you are working from home. You have a home office, and it seems to pass all the bells-and-whistles required for a tax deduction. Can you deduct it?

Depends. On what? On how you are compensated.

(1) If you are a W-2 employee, then you have no deduction.

(2) If you receive a 1099 (think gig worker), then you have a deduction.

Seems unfair.

Can we shift those deductions to the W-2 employer? Would charging rent be enough to transform the issue from being an employee to being a landlord?

There was a Tax Court case back in the 1980s involving the tax director of a public accounting firm in Phoenix (Feldman). His position involved considerable administrative work, a responsibility difficult to square with being accessible to staff at work while also maintaining confidentiality on private firm matters.

Feldman built a house, including a dedicated office.  He worked out an above-market lease with his firm. He then deducted an allocable share of everything he could against that rent, including maid service.

No surprise, Feldman and the IRS went to Tax Court.

Let’s look at the Code section under dispute:

Sec 280A Disallowance of certain expenses in connection with business use of home, rental of vacation homes, etc.

(a)  General rule.

Except as otherwise provided in this section, in the case of a taxpayer who is an individual or an S corporation, no deduction otherwise allowable under this chapter shall be allowed with respect to the use of a dwelling unit which is used by the taxpayer during the taxable year as a residence.

Thanks for the warm-up, said Feldman., but let’s continue reading:

      Sec 280A(c)(3) Rental use.

Subsection (a) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit or portion thereof (determined after the application of subsection (e).

I am renting space to the firm, he argued. Why are we even debating this?

The lease is bogus, said the IRS (the “respondent”).

Respondent does not deny that under section 280A a taxpayer may offset income attributable to the rental of a portion of his home with the costs of producing that rental income. He contends, however, that the rental arrangement here is an artifice arranged to disguise compensation as rental income in order to enable petitioner to avoid the strict requirements of section 280A(c)(1) for deducting home office expenses. Because there was no actual rental of a portion of the home, argues respondent, petitioner must qualify under section 280A(c)(1) before he may deduct the home office expenses.

Notice that the IRS conceded that Feldman was reading the Code correctly. They instead were arguing that he was violating the spirit of the law, and they insisted the Court should observe the spirit and not the text.

The IRS was concerned that the above-market rent was disguised compensation (which it was BTW). Much of tax practice is follow-the-leader, so green-lighting this arrangement could encourage other employers and employees to shift a portion of their salaries to rent. This would in turn free-up additional tax deductions to the employee - at no additional cost to the employer but at a cost to the fisc.

The IRS had a point. As a tax practitioner, I would use this technique - once blessed by the Court – whenever I could.

The Court adjusted for certain issues – such as the excess rent – but decided the case mostly in Feldman’s favor.

The win for practitioners was short-lived. In response Congress added the following to the Code:

      (6)  Treatment of rental to employer.

Paragraphs (1) and (3) shall not apply to any item which is attributable to the rental of the dwelling unit (or any portion thereof) by the taxpayer to his employer during any period in which the taxpayer uses the dwelling unit (or portion) in performing services as an employee of the employer.

An employer can pay rent for an employee’s office in home, said Congress, but we are disallowing deductions against that rental income.

Our case this time was Feldman v Commissioner, 84 T.C. 1 (U.S.T.C. 1985).

 

A Too Rare Taxpayer Win Over Foreign Reporting

I have become cynical about IRS penalties.

Like many accountants, I initially learned that penalties were in the system as a deterrent. If one complies with reporting responsibilities, penalties should not enter the picture. If they do, they surely would be for ministerial causes (think late payment of an estimated tax) and minor, and – if somehow major – waivable upon showing reasonable cause for the mistake.  

Poppycock.

Congress has been raising and creating penalties for decades to “pay for” their tax bills. I would also argue that the IRS has used penalties as a backstop to its funding, especially during Republican budget stringency after the Lois Lerner fiasco.  

The IRS often assesses penalties automatically, without anyone even glancing at your return. This transfers tax administration from the IRS to you – and then by extension – to me. Say that you have a reportable interest in a foreign corporation. The IRS says you must file a certain information report. I get it: the IRS wants to know what is going on. You file the report, but you file it late. Why late? Who knows. Your accountant was on health leave. You were misadvised. You were never advised because you did not recognize it as a tax-sensitive issue. You will – soon enough – get an automatic IRS notice for a $10,000 penalty – or more. You complied, but not fast enough.

Reasonable cause?

Depends on who defines reasonable. As a practicing tax CPA for decades, I am much more open to reasonable cause. Why? I am closer to the day-to-day, so I do not have the anesthesia of distance and disinterest. Things ... just … happen. No one likes paying, but let’s not use that same brush to accuse one of gaming the system.

Let’s take a look at Wrzesinski.

We will call him “W” to keep our sanity.

W was born in Poland. He moved to the United States when he was 19 years old.

A few years later his mom, who still lived in Poland, won the Polish lottery.

Sweet.

Mom gifted him $830,000 over a couple of years.

W knew about U.S. tax. He contacted his tax advisor to ask what the consequences would be. His advisor (G) correctly told him that the gift would not be taxable, but incorrectly told him that no further reporting was required.

I know that G was wrong, but how could the IRS expect W to know that?

Fast forward a few years and W wanted to make a gift to his godson in Poland. He did an internet search, at which time he realized that – while not taxable – reporting was still required. He realized this situation as his own years before, and he contacted an attorney with expertise in foreign tax matters.

W got into an IRS program for late filing of certain foreign-related returns. The IRS would tread lightly if one had reasonable cause, and both W and his attorney thought he had reasonable cause to spare.

I agree.

The IRS came back with its automatic penalties: they wanted $87,500 for one year and $120,000 for the second.

Their reason?

The Notices stated that …

… ignorance of the tax laws was not a basis for penalty abatement under the “reasonable cause” standard and that ordinary business care and prudence require that the taxpayers be aware of their obligations and file or deposit accordingly.”

I would argue the opposite: good faith “ignorance” of tax laws is exactly the basis for the reasonable cause standard. We have more than once huddled here at Galactic Command analyzing tax consequences, especially if planning a transaction. We sometimes disagree. We have run into gaps in tax law, as Congress is churning out this stuff faster than the IRS and the profession can interpret. We have run into contradictions in tax law, especially when the aforesaid gaps are working their way through the courts system. Did I mention that we are all CPAs with varying tax backgrounds? I am, for example, a tax specialist. It is all I do and have done for years.

Consider that there was no tax shelter here, no attempt to avoid reporting income or of claiming bogus deductions. There was a gift from a mother to a son. A gift unfortunately involving some of the most arcane reporting rules embedded in the tax Code. There was no need for the IRS to flog the guy.

W and his attorney protested the penalties.

The IRS lost W’s protest.

Yes, they “lost” his protest.

It took the Taxpayer Advocate to find it.

The IRS abated all but $40 thousand or so of penalties.

W paid it.

And he immediately filed claims for refund.

I like this guy.

The IRS bounced the first claim, saying he did not establish reasonable cause.

You may be figuring out the IRS schtick when in this situation. It is a one-play gamebook: nothing is reasonable. Boyle. Go away.

The IRS bounced the second claim, saying that it was “frivolous.”

Folks, never ever tell a tax practitioner that his/her position is “frivolous.” That is a loaded word in tax practice.

This thing … NO SURPRISE … went to Court.

Let’s fast forward.

In a too-rare taxpayer win, the DOJ conceded the case on February 7, 2023, and requested six to eight weeks to refund W his remaining penalties.

But look at the effort it took.

Our case this time was Krzysztof Wrzesinski v The United States, U.S. District Court, Eastern District of Pennsylvania.

Self-Sabotaging A Penalty Abatement

 

The opinion is two and a half pages.

It is one of the shortest opinions I have seen. That was – frankly – what caught my interest.

Francis Kemegue lost his job in 2017. I do not know details, but he experienced multiple personal and professional setbacks.

He extended his 2017 return.

Gotta be a late file/late payment case. If you are ever in a situation where you are unable to pay your tax, file the return nonetheless. Yes, the IRS will eventually contact you, but they are going to contact you anyway. The penalties for filing a late return are more severe than for filing but not paying.

Kemegue in fact never filed his 2017 return.

Sounds like that job loss debilitated him.

The IRS prepared a tax return for him. This a called a “substitute return,” and the IRS assumes that every known receipt (think computer matching) is taxable and that there are no deductions. The math is bogus, of course. The IRS is not so much trying to prepare your return as to catch your attention.  

He owed with that substitute return.

Of course.

Now he was late file and late pay.

Great.

Kemegue wanted a break.

Go for it.

More specifically, he wanted abatement of the late file and pay penalties.

I would do the same. There is a kabuki dance to this, however. Abating this penalty requires establishment of reasonable cause. The IRS has for a while been (in my opinion) very unreasonable about reasonable cause. However, if Kemegue was seeing a counselor or otherwise under professional care – even if intermittently - he has a decent chance. This would be a superb time to obtain exculpatory letters from his health professional(s) and to polish his storytelling chops.

Kemegue did not do any of this.

He did talk about his job search, including traveling to other states. He even tried to start his own company.

Kemegue, you are missing the plot here.

The Court wanted to know more about his story: shattering setback, evaporating self-confidence, needing help for depression. He fell behind on his tax return because he – you know – fell behind in all areas of his life.

Silence.

Not good.

The Court wanted to know: what was going on that he could travel and search for work but not file that tax return?

Again silence.

You know how this turned out.

Sheesshh.

Our case this time was Francis Kemegue v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2023-5.

Navigating The Tax Code On Your Own

 

I received a phone call recently from the married daughter of a client. I spoke with the couple – mostly the son-in-law – about needing an accountant. They had bought property, converted property to rental status and were selling property the following (that is, this) year.

It sounds like a lot. It really isn’t. It was clear during our conversation that they were well-versed in the tax issues.

I told them: “you don’t need me.”

They were surprised to hear this.

Why would I say that?

They knew more than they gave themselves credit for. Why pay me? Let them put the money to better use.

Let’s take an aside before continuing our story.

We - like many firms - are facing staffing pressure. The profession has brought much of this upon itself – public accounting has a blemished past – and today’s graduates appear to be aware of the sweatshop mentality that has preceded them. Lose a talented accountant. Experience futility in hiring new talent. Ask those who remain to work even harder to make up the shortfall. Be surprised when they eventually leave because of overwork. Unchecked, this problem can be a death spiral for a firm.

Firms are addressing this in different ways. Many firms are dismissing clients or not accepting new ones. Many (if not most) have increased minimum fees for new clients. Some have released entire lines of business. There is a firm nearby, for example, which has released all or nearly all of its fiduciary tax practice.

We too are taking steps, one of which is to increase our minimum fee for new individual tax clients.

Back to the young couple.

I explained that I did not want to charge them that minimum fee, especially since it appeared they could prepare their return as well as I could. 

They explained they wanted certainty that it was done right.

Yeah, I want that for them too. We will work something out.

But I think there is a larger issue here.

The tax Code keeps becoming increasingly complex. That is fine if we are talking about Apple or Microsoft, as they can afford to hire teams of accountants and attorneys. It is not fine for ordinary people, hopefully experiencing some success in life, but unable – or fearful - to prepare their own returns. Couple this with an overburdened accounting profession, a sclerotic IRS, and a Congress that may be brewing a toxic stew with its never-ending disfigurement of the tax Code to solve all perceived ills since the days of Hammurabi.

How are people supposed to know that they do not know?

Let’s look at the Lucas case.

Robert Lucas was a software engineer who lost his job in 2017. He was assisting his son and daughter, and he withdrew approximately $20 grand from his 401(k) toward that end.

Problem: Lucas was not age 59 ½.

Generally speaking, that means one has taxable income.

One may also have a penalty for early distribution. While that may seem like double jeopardy, such is the law.

Sure enough, the plan administrator issued a Form 1099 showing the distribution as taxable to Lucas with no known penalty exception.

Lucas should have paid the tax and penalty. He did not, which is why we are talking about this.

The IRS computers caught the omission, of course, and off to Tax Court they went.

Lucas argued that he had been diagnosed with diabetes a couple of years earlier. He had read on a website that diabetes would make the distribution nontaxable.

Sigh. He had misread – or someone had written something wildly inaccurate about – being “unable to engage in any substantial gainful activity.”

That is a no.

Since he thought the distribution nontaxable, he also thought the early distribution penalty would not apply.

No … again.

Lucas tried.

He thought he knew, but he did not know.

He could have used a competent tax preparer.

But how was he to know that?

Our case this time was Robert B. Lucas v Commissioner T.C.M. 2023-009.

A Brief History of Limited Partner Self-Employment Tax

 

There is a case going through the courts that caught my eye.

It has to do with limited liability companies (LLCs). More specifically, it has to do with LLC members.

LLCs started coming into their own in the 1990s. That gives us about 35 years of tax law to work with, and in many (if not most) cases practitioners have a good idea what the answers are.

There is one question, however, that still lingers.

Let’s set it up.

Before there were LLCs there were limited partnerships (LPs). The LPs will forever be associated with the tax shelters, and much of the gnarliness of partnership taxation is the result of Congress playing whack-a-mole with the shelters.

The LPs tended to have a similar structure.

(1)  Someone set up a partnership.

(2)  There were two tiers of partners.

a.    The general partner(s) who ran the show.

b.    The limited partner(s) who provided the cash but were not otherwise involved in the show. It is very possible that the limited was a well-to-do investor placed there by a financial advisor. The limited partner was basically investing while hoping for a mild/moderate/lavish side dish of tax deduction goodness.

The liability of the limited partners in the event of disaster was capped, generally to the amount invested. They truly were limited.

A tax question at this point was:

Is a limited partner subject to self-employment tax on his/her share of the earnings?

This question was not as simple as it may sound.

Why?

Did you know there was a time when people WANTED to pay into social security?

Let’s do WAYBAC machine.

When first implemented, social security only applied to certain W-2 workers.

This was an issue. There was a significant tranche of workers, such as government employees and self-employeds, who did not qualify. Enough of these excluded workers wanted (eventual) social security benefits that Congress changed the rules in 1950, when it introduced self-employment (SE) taxes. FICA applies to a W-2 worker. SE taxes apply to a self-employed worker. Both FICA and SE are social security taxes.

Congress also made all partners subject to SE tax: general, limited, vegan, soccer fan, whatever.

This in turn prompted promoters to peddle partnerships for the primary purpose of paying self-employment tax.

It sounds crazy in 2023, but it was not crazy at the time. During the 1950s the SE rate varied between 2.25% and 3.375% and the wage base from $3,600 to $4,200. Take someone who had never paid into social security. Getting an annual partnership K-1 and paying a little bit of SE tax in return for a government-backed lifetime annuity sounded appealing. The value of those benefits likely far exceeded the cost of any SE taxes.

It was appealing enough to catch Congress’ attention.

In 1977 Section 1402(a)(13) entered the tax Code:

There shall be excluded the distributive share of any item of income or loss of a limited partner, as such, other than guaranteed payments … to that partner for services actually rendered to or on behalf of the partnership to the extent that those payments are established to be in the nature of renumeration for those services.”

You see what Congress did: they were addressing the partnerships gaming the social security system. One could earn social security benefits if one was involved in business activities, but not if one were just an investor – that is, a “limited” partner.

But things change.

Social security tax rates kept going up. The social security wage base kept climbing. Social security was becoming expensive. Rather than opt-in to social security, people were trying to opt out.

And businesses themselves kept changing.

Enter the LLCs.

Every member in an LLC could have “limited” liability for the entity’s debts. How would that play with a tax Code built on the existence of general and limited partners? LLCs introduced a hybrid.

Taxwise, it was problematic.

In 1994 the IRS took its first shot. It proposed Regulations that would respect an LLC member as a limited partner if:

(1) The member was not a manager of the LLC, and

(2) The LLC could have been formed as a limited partnership, and, if so, the member would have been classified as a limited partner.

It was a decent try, but the tax side was relying very heavily on the state law side. Throw in 50 states with 50 laws and this approach was unwieldy.

The IRS revisited in 1997. It had a new proposal:

         An individual was a limited partner unless

(1) He/she was personally liable for partnership debt, or

(2)  He/she could sign contracts for the partnership, or

(3) He/she participated in partnership activities for more than 500 hours during the year.

Got it. The IRS was focusing more on functional tests and less on state law.

I was in practice in 1997. I remember the reaction to the IRS proposal.

It was intense enough that the politicians got involved. Congress slapped a moratorium on further IRS action in this area. This was also in 1997.

The moratorium is still there, BTW, 26 years later.

And now there is a case (Soroban Capital Partners LP v Commissioner) coming through and returning attention to this issue.

Why?

Sure, there have been cases testing the SE tax waters, but most times the numbers have been modest. There has been no need to call out the National Guard or foam the runways.

Soroban upped the ante.

Soroban is challenging whether approximately $140 million (over several years) is subject to SE tax.

Soroban also brings a twist to the issue:

Can a partner/member wear both hats? That is, can the same person be a general partner/member (and subject to SE tax) and a limited partner/member (and not subject to SE tax)?

It is not a new issue, but it is a neglected issue.

We’ll return to Soroban in the future.