What If You Put Too Much In An IRA?

I am looking at a Tax Court case (Dunn v Commissioner) for $1,460 in tax and $292 in penalties. It seemed a low dollar amount to take to Tax Court, which in turn prompted me to think that Dunn was either an attorney or CPA. He would then represent himself, skipping the professional fees.

Dunn is an attorney.

Then I read what landed in him in hot water.

Folks, sometimes we have to pay attention to the details.

We have talked on this blog about shiny objects like real estate investment trusts, charitable remainder trusts, private foundations and so forth.  Hopefully we have told the story in an entertaining way, as tax literature does not tend to be riveting reading. For most of us, however, our finances and taxes are quite humdrum. Odds are our tax troubles are going to come from not attending to the details.

Let’s tell the story.

Stephen Dunn is a tax attorney in Michigan. In 2008 he was working for a law firm. He finished 2008 as self-employed and continued as such through 2010. He participated in the law firm’s retirement plan – presumably a 401(k) - for the part of 2008 he was there.

He made the following IRA contributions:

            2008                          $6,000

            2009                          $6,000

            2010                          $ 800

The IRS took a look and disallowed his 2008 IRA contribution.

Why?

Because he was covered by a retirement plan at work.

There is no income “test” for an IRA contribution if one (or one’s spouse) does not have another available retirement plan. Have a plan at work, however, and the rule changes. The tax Code will disallow your IRA deduction if you make too much money.

What is too much?

If you are a single filer, it starts at $61,000. If you are a married filer, it starts at $98,000.

For what it is worth, I consider these income limits to be idiocy. I cringe when someone thinks that $61,000 is “too much money.” Perhaps it was back in the 1950s, but nowadays $61,000 will not rock you a Thurston Howell lifestyle anywhere across the fruited plain. Remember also that a maximum IRA is $5,500 ($6,500 if one is age 50 and above). If taxes on $5,500 are a fiscal threat to the Treasury, we have much more serious problems than any discussion about IRAs.

Dunn got caught-up in the rules and made too much money for a deductible IRA contribution in 2008.

No problem, thought Dunn the attorney. He rolled the $6,000 forward and deducted it in 2010. Mind you, he wrote checks for only $800 in 2010. The $6,000 was a “carryforward,” so to speak.

So, what is the problem?

Generally speaking, individuals report their taxes on the cash basis of accounting. This means that they report income in the year they receive a check, and they report deductions in the year they write a check. The tax Code does allow some latitude with IRAs, as one can fund a previous-year IRA through April 15^th of the following year. That is a special case, however. The tax Code however does not automatically “carryover” an excess contribution from one year to the next. In fact, overfund an IRA and the tax Code will assess a 6% penalty for every year you leave the excess in the IRA.

How do tax professionals handle this in practice?

Easy enough: you have the IRA custodian move it to the following year. Say that you are age 58 and put $7,000 in your 2014 IRA. You have overfunded $500, no matter what the results of the income test are. You would call the custodian (Dunn’s custodian was Vanguard), explain your situation and ask them to move the $500.

Now there is a detail here that has to be clarified. Say that you contributed $1,000 of the $7,000 in March, 2015 (for your 2014 tax year). You could ask Vanguard to move $500 of that $1,000 to 2015. They probably would, as they received it in 2015.

Let’s change the facts. You contributed all of the $7,000 in 2014. Vanguard now will likely not move any of the money because none of it was received in 2015.  The best Vanguard can do is send you a $500 check, which you will deposit and send back to Vanguard as a 2015 contribution.

What did Dunn not do?

He never called Vanguard and had them move the money. In his case it would have been a bit frustrating, as he had to get from 2008 to 2010. He would be calling Vanguard a lot. He would have to refund 2008 and fund 2009; then refund 2009 and fund 2010. Vanguard may have not wanted him as a customer by that point, but that is a different issue.

Dunn tried. He even requested the equivalent of mercy, pointing out:

…Congress’ policy of encouraging retirement savings supports the deduction they seek.”

Here is the Tax Court:

            These arguments are addressed to the wrong forum.”

Ouch.

Dunn did not pay attention to the details. He lost his case and also got smacked with a penalty. I am not a fan of IRS-automatically-hitting-people-in-the-face-with-a-penalty, but in this case I understand.

After all, Dunn is a tax attorney.

Helping Out A Family Member’s Business

Let’s say that you have a profitable business. You have a family member who has an unprofitable business. You want to help out the family member. You meet with your tax advisor to determine if there is tax angle to consider.

Here is your quiz question and it will account for 100% of your grade:

What should you to maximize the chances of a tax deduction?

Let’s discuss Espaillat and Lizardo v Commissioner.

Mr. Jose Espaillat was married to Ms. Mirian Lizardo. Jose owned a successful landscaping business in Phoenix for a number of years. In 2006 his brother (Leoncio Espaillat) opened a scrap metal business (Rocky Scrap Metal) in Texas. Rocky Scrap organized as a corporation with the Texas secretary of state and filed federal corporate tax returns for 2008 and 2009.

Being a good brother, Jose traveled regularly to help out Leoncio with the business. Regular travel reached the point where Jose purchased a home in Texas, as he was spending so much time there.

Rocky Scrap needed a big loan. The bank wanted to charge big interest, so Jose stepped in. He lent money; he also made direct purchases on behalf of Rocky Scrap. In 2007 and 2008 he contributed at least $285,000 to Rocky Scrap. Jose did not charge interest; he just wanted to be paid back.

Jose and Mirian met with their accountant to prepare their 2008 individual income tax return. Jose’s landscaping business was a Schedule C proprietorship/sole member LLC, and their accountant recommended they claim the Rocky Scrap monies on a second Schedule C. They would report Rocky Scrap the same way as they reported the landscaping business, which answer made sense to Jose and Mirian. Inexplicably, the $285,000 somehow became $359,000 when it got on their tax return.

In 2009 Rocky Scrap filed for bankruptcy. I doubt you would be surprised if I told you that Jose paid for the attorney. At least the bankruptcy listed Jose as a creditor.

In 2010 Jose entered into a stock purchase agreement with Leoncio. He was to receive 50% of the Rocky Scrap stock in exchange for the aforementioned $285,000 – plus another $50,000 Jose was to put in.

In 2011 Jose received $6,000 under the bankruptcy plan. It appears that the business did not improve all that much.

In 2011 Miriam and their son (Eduan) moved to Texas to work and help at Rocky Scrap. Jose stayed behind in Phoenix taking care of the landscaping business.

Then the family relationship deteriorated. In 2013 a judge entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting Jose, Miriam and Eduan from managing or otherwise directing the business operations of Rocky Scrap.  

Jose, Miriam and Eduan walked away. I presume they sold the Texas house, as they did not need it anymore.

The IRS looked at Jose and Mirian’s 2008 and 2009 individual tax returns.  There were several issues with the landscaping business and with their itemized deductions, but the big issue was the $359,000 Schedule C loss.

The IRS disallowed the whole thing.

On to Tax Court they went. Jose and Mirian’s petition asserted that they were involved in a business called “Second Hand Metal” and that the loss was $285,000. What happened to the earlier number of $359,000? Who knows.

What was the IRS’ argument?

Easy: there was no trade or business to put on a Schedule C. There was a corporation organized in Texas, and its name was Rocky Scrap Metals. It filed its own tax return.  The loss belonged to it. Jose and Mirian may have loaned it money, they may have worked there, they may have provided consulting expertise, but at no time were Jose and Mirian the same thing as Rocky Scrap Metal.

Jose and Mirian countered that they intended all along to be owners of Rocky Scrap. In fact, they thought that they were. They would not have bought a house in Texas otherwise. At a minimum, they were in partnership or joint venture with Rocky Scrap if they were not in fact owners of Rocky Scrap.

Unfortunately thinking and wanting are not the same as having and doing. It did not help that Leoncio represented himself as the sole owner when filing the federal corporate tax returns or the bankruptcy paperwork. The Court pointed out the obvious: they were not shareholders in 2008 and 2009. In fact, they were never shareholders.

OBSERVATION: Also keep in mind that Rocky Scrap filed its own corporate tax returns. That meant that it was a “C” corporation, and Jose and Mirian would not have been entitled to a share of its loss in any event. What Jose and Mirian may have hoped for was an “S” corporation, where the company passes-through its income or loss to its shareholders, who in turn report said income or loss on their individual tax return. 

 

The Court had two more options to consider.

First, perhaps Jose made a capital investment. If that investment had become worthless, then perhaps … 

Problem is that Rocky Scrap continued on. In fact, in 2013 it obtained a restraining order against Jose, Miriam and Eduan, so it must have still been in existence.  Granted, it filed for bankruptcy in 2009. While bankruptcy is a factor in evaluating worthlessness, it is not the only factor and it was offset by Rocky Metal continuing in business.  If Rocky Scrap became worthless, it did not happen in 2009.

Second, what if Jose made a loan that went uncollectible?

The Court went through the same reasoning as above, with the same conclusion.

OBSERVATION: In both cases, Jose would have netted only a $3,000 per year capital loss. This would have been small solace against the $285,000 the IRS disallowed.

The Court decided there was no $285,000 loss.

Then the IRS – as is its recent unattractive wont – wanted a $12,000 penalty on top of the $60-plus-thousand-dollar tax adjustment it just won. Obviously if the IRS can find a different answer in 74,000+ pages of tax Code, one must be a tax scofflaw and deserving of whatever fine the IRS deems appropriate.

The Court decided the IRS had gone too far on the penalty.

Here is the Court:

He [Jose] is familiar with running a business and keeping records but has a limited knowledge of the tax code. In sum, Mr. Espaillat is an experienced small business owner but not a sophisticated taxpayer.”

Jose and Mirian relied on their tax advisor, which is an allowable defense to the accuracy-related penalty. Granted, the tax advisor got it wrong, but that is not the same as Jose and Mirian getting it wrong. The point of seeing a dentist is not doing the dentistry yourself.

What should the tax advisor done way back when, when meeting with Jose and Mirian to prepare their 2008 tax return?

First, he should have known the long-standing doctrine that a taxpayer devoting time and energy to the affairs of a corporation is not engaged in his own trade or business. The taxpayer is an employee and is furthering the business of the corporation.

Granted Jose and Mirian put-in $285,000, but any tax advantage from a loan was extremely limited – unless they had massive unrealized capital gains somewhere. Otherwise that capital loss was releasing a tax deduction at the rate of $3,000 per year. One should live so long.

The advisor should have alerted them that they needed to be owners. Retroactively. They also needed Rocky Scrap to be an S corporation.  Retroactively. It would also have been money well-spent to have an attorney draw up corporate minutes and update any necessary paperwork.

That is also the answer to our quiz question: to maximize your chance of a tax deduction you and the business should become one-and-the-same. This means a passthrough entity: a proprietorship, a partnership, an LLC or an S corporation. You do not want that business filing its own tax return.  The best you could do then is have a worthless investment or uncollectible loan, with very limited tax benefits.

The Income Awakens

Despite the chatter of politicians, we are not soon filing income taxes on the back of a postcard. A major reason is the calculation of income itself. There can be reasonable dispute in calculating income, even for ordinary taxpayers and far removed from the rarified realms of the ultra-wealthy or the multinationals.    

How? Easy. Say you have a rental duplex. What depreciation period should you use for the property: 15 years? 25? 35? No depreciation at all? Something else?

And sometimes the reason is because the taxpayer knows just enough tax law to be dangerous.

Let’s talk about a fact pattern you do not see every day. Someone sells a principal residence – you know, a house with its $500,000 tax exclusion. There is a twist: they sell the house on a land contract. They collect on the contract for a few years, and then the buyer defaults. The house comes back.  

How would you calculate their income from a real estate deal gone bad?

You can anticipate it has something to do with that $500,000 exclusion.

Marvin DeBough bought a house on 80 acres of land. He bought it back in the 1960s for $25,000. In 2006 he sold it for $1.4 million. He sold it on a land contract.

COMMENT: A land contract means that the seller is playing bank. The buyer has a mortgage, but the mortgage is to the seller. To secure the mortgage, the seller retains the deed to the property, and the buyer does not receive the deed until the mortgage is paid off. This is in contrast to a regular mortgage, where the buyer receives the deed but the deed is subject to the mortgage. The reason that sellers like land contracts is because it is easier to foreclose in the event of nonpayment.

 

 DeBough had a gain of $657,796.

OBSERVATION: I know: $1.4 million minus $25,000 is not $657,796. Almost all of the difference was a step-up in basis when his wife passed away.  

DeBough excluded $500,000 of gain, as it was his principal residence. That resulted in taxable gain of $157,796. He was to receive $1.4 million. As a percentage, 11.27 cents on every dollar he receives ($157,796 divided by $1,400,000) would be taxable gain.

He received $505,000. Multiply that by 11.27% and he reported $56,920 as gain.

In 2009 the buyers defaulted and the property returned to DeBough. It cost him $3,723 in fees to reacquire the property. He then held on to the property.

What is DeBough’s income?

Here is his calculation:

Original gain		157,796
Reported to-date		(56,920)
Cost of foreclosure		(3,723)
		97,153

I don’t think so, said the IRS. Here is their calculation:

Cash received		505,000
Reported to-date		(56,920)
		448,080

DeBough was outraged. He wanted to know what the IRS had done with his $500,000 exclusion.

The IRS trotted out Section 1038(e):

         (e)  Principal residences.

If-

(1) subsection (a) applies to a reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence); and

(2)  within 1 year after the date of the reacquisition of such property by the seller, such property is resold by him,

then, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsections (b) , (c) , and (d) of this section shall not apply to the reacquisition of such property and, for purposes of applying section 121 , the resale of such property shall be treated as a part of the transaction constituting the original sale of such property.

DeBough was not happy about that “I year after the date of the reacquisition” language. However, he pointed out, it does not technically say that the $500,000 is NOT AVAILABLE if the property is NOT SOLD WITHIN ONE YEAR.

I give him credit. He is a lawyer by temperament, apparently.  DeBough could find actionable language on the back of a baseball card.

It was an uphill climb. Still, others have pulled it off, so maybe he had a chance.

The Court observed that there is no explanation in the legislative history why Congress limited the exclusion to sellers who resell within one year of reacquisition. Still, it seemed clear that Congress did in fact limit the exclusion, so the “why” was going to have to wait for another day.

DeBough lost his case. He owed tax.

And the Court was right. The general rule – when the property returned to DeBough – is that every dollar DeBough received was taxable income, reduced by any gain previously taxed and limited to the overall gain from the sale. DeBough was back to where he was before, except that he received $505,000 in the interim. The IRS wanted its cut of the $505,000.

Yes, Congress put an exception in there should the property be resold within one year. The offset – although unspoken – is that the seller can claim the $500,000 exclusion, but he/she claims it on the first sale, not the second. One cannot keep claiming the $500,000 over and over again on the same property.

Since Debough did not sell within one year, he will claim the $500,000 when he sells the property a second time.

When you look at it that way, he is not out anything. He will have his day, but that day has to wait until he sells the property again.

And there is an example of tax law. Congress put in an exception to a rule, but even the Court cannot tell you what Congress was thinking.

Losing An Alimony Tax Deduction

There are certain tax topics that repeat – weekly, monthly, ceaselessly and without end. One such is the tax issues surrounding divorce. I have often wondered why this happens, as divorce is surely one of the most lawyered life events an average person can experience. I will often skip divorce tax cases, as I am just tired of the topic.

But a recent one caught my eye.

The spouses were trying to work something out between them. It was clear to me that they solicited no tax advice, as they plunged off the bridge without checking the depth of the water below.

John and Beatrix were married. They legally separated in 2008 and divorced in 2013. In the interim John agreed to make 48 monthly maintenance payments of $2,289. There was a clause stipulating that payments were to be taxable to her and deductible by him, and the payments were to cease upon her remarriage or death.

John found himself unemployed. His payments were to begin in 2010. Presumably concerned about his financial situation, he and Beatrix agreed in 2009 to transfer his IRA worth $38,913.

John did not deduct the IRA as an alimony payment on his 2009 tax return.

Why not? Because Beatrix was to start withdrawing $2,289 monthly from the IRA the following year, presumably until the $38,913 was exhausted. It made more sense to John that those monthly payments would trigger the alimony.

There is some rhyme or reason to his thinking.

It appears his finances improved, as in 2010 he was able to directly pay Beatrix $6,920.  

In 2010 he deducted $27,468 ($2,289 times 12) as alimony.

The IRS disallowed all but $6,920.

Off to Tax Court they went.

There are four key statutory requirements before any payment can be deductible as alimony:

(1)  The payment must be required under a divorce or separation decree.

(2) The decree cannot say that the payments are not deductible/taxable.

(3)  The two individuals cannot be members of the same household.

(4) There cannot be any requirement to continue the payments after the death of the payee spouse.

It is amazing how often someone will fail one of these. A common story is one spouse beginning payments before the court issues the order, or a spouse paying more than the court order. Do that and the payment is not “required.” Another story is presuming that the payment is deductible because the decree says that it is. The IRS does not consider itself bound because one included such language in the decree.

Then there are the softer, non-key requirements.

For example, only cash payments will qualify as alimony.

If you think about this one for a moment, it makes sense. The Code already allows spouses to transfer property in a divorce without triggering tax (Code section 1041). This allows spouses to transfer the house, for example, as well as retirement benefits under a QDRO order. The Code views these transactions as property settlements – meaning the ex-spouses are simply dividing into separate ownership what they previously owned together.

COMMENT: It is highly debatable whether John’s IRA is “cash.”  Granted, there may be cash in the IRA, but that not is not the same as saying the IRA is cash or a cash equivalent. It would make more sense to say that it is the equivalent of stocks or mutual funds. This would make it property, not cash.

Let’s next go back to rule (4) above. A way to rephrase that rule is that the payee spouse cannot be enriched after death. Obviously, if maintenance payments were to continue after death, then the payee-spouse’s estate would be enriched. That is not allowed.

In our situation, Beatrix now owned an IRA. Granted, the expectation may have been that she would outlive any balance in the IRA, but that expectation is not controlling. If she passed away, the balance in the IRA would be hers to transfer pursuant to her beneficiary designation.

She was enriched. She had something that continued past her (albeit hypothetical) death.

Another issue was whether John should get credit for IRA withdrawals by Beatrix in 2010. Why?  John transferred the IRA to her in 2009. The account was no longer his. It was hers, and he could no longer piggyback on anything the IRA did. If he was going to deduct anything, he would have had to deduct it in 2009.

Which, by the way, he could not because of rule (1): it was not required under the decree. The decree called for payments beginning in 2010, not in 2009.

The Tax Court decided that John had a 2010 alimony deduction for $6,920, the amount he paid Beatrix directly.

Why did John do it this way? 

If John was less than 59 1/2, so he could not get into his IRA without penalty.  He could QDRO, but that is just a property settlement. John wanted an alimony deduction. If he kept the IRA, he would have income on the withdrawal and a deduction for the alimony. That is a push - except for the 10% penalty on the early withdrawal. John was in a tough spot.

Then again, maybe he didn't think of tax matters at all.