Rolling Over An Inherited IRA

I am not a fan of the 60-day IRA rollover.

I admit that my response is colored by being the tax guy cleaning-up when something goes awry. Unless the administrator just refuses a trustee-to-trustee rollover, I am hard pressed to come up with a persuasive reason why someone should receive a check during a rollover.

Let’s go over a case. I want you to guess whether the rollover did or did not work.

Taxpayer’s mom died in 2008.

Mom had two IRAs. She left them to her daughter, who received two checks: one for $2,828 and a second for $35,358.

The daughter rolled over $35,358 and kept the smaller check.

On her tax return, she reported gross IRA distributions of $38,194 (there is a small difference; I do not know why) and taxable distributions of $2,828.

She did not have an early distribution penalty, as that penalty does not apply to inherited accounts.

The IRS flagged her, saying that the full $38,194 was taxable.

What do you think?

Let’s go over it.

There is no question she was well within the 60-day period.

The money went into an IRA account. This is not a case where monies erroneously went into something other than an IRA.

This was the daughter’s only rollover, so we are not triggering the rule where one can only roll IRA monies in this manner once every twelve months.

The Court decided that the daughter was taxable on the full amount.

Why?

She ran face-first into a sub-rule: one cannot rollover an inherited account, with the exception of a surviving spouse.

The daughter argued that she intended to roll and also substantially complied with the rollover rules.

Here is the Tax Court:

The Code’s lines are arbitrary. Congress has concluded that some lines of this kind are appropriate. The judiciary is not authorized to redraw the boundaries.”

This is a polite way of saying that tax rules sometimes make no sense. They just are. The Tax Court, not being a court of equity, cannot decide a case just because a result might be viewed as unfair.

The Court did not address the point, but there is one more issue at play here.

There are penalties for overfunding an IRA.

Say that you can put away $6,500. You instead put away $10,000. You have overfunded by $3,500.

So what?

You have to get the excess money out of there, that’s what.

Normally I recommend that the $3,500 be moved as a contribution to the following year, nixing the penalty issue.

Let’s say that you do not do that. In fact, you do not even know to do that.

For whatever reason, the IRS examines your return five years later. Say they catch the issue. You now owe a 6% penalty on the overfunding.

That’s not bad, you think. You will pay $210 and move on.

Nope.

It is 6% a year.

And you still have to get the $3,500 out.

Except it is now not $3,500. It is $3,500 plus any earnings thereon for five years.

Say that amount is $5,500, including earnings.

You take out $5,500.

You have five years of 6% penalties. You also have tax on $2,000 (that is, $5,500 minus $3,500).

If you are under 59 ½ you probably have an early-distribution penalty on the $2,000.

Plus penalties and interest on top of that.

I like to think that the Tax Court cut the taxpayer a break by not spotlighting the overfunding penalty issue.

Our case this time was Beech v Commissioner.

A Tax Preparer As A Witness

It is – once again – that time of year. Extensions. The business extensions came due last month. The individual extensions are due this month.

What a crazy thing to do for a living.

I have not had a lot of time to scan my normal sources, but I did see a case that caught my eye.

The taxpayers live in Illinois. They have an S corporation.

They rent a pole-barn garage to the S corporation. The corporation stores tractors, trailers and other equipment there.

Pretty normal.

They used a tax preparer for their 2012 and 2013 individual returns.

On their rental schedule, they deducted (among other expenses) the following:

·      Interest of $5,846 for 2012 and $4,336 for 2013

·      Taxes of $7,058 for 2012 and $10,395 for 2013

They also deducted the personal portion of their interest and taxes as itemized deductions.

I was anticipating that they double-counted the interest and taxes.

Nope.

They never could document the 2012 real estate taxes on their rental schedule.

Seriously?

Then we have 2013. The Court agreed that the taxes were paid, but they were paid by the S corporation.

Folks, to claim the taxes on a personal return one has to pay the taxes personally.

There went the rental real estate tax deduction for both years.

Onward to the 2012 mortgage interest.

Same answer as the 2013 real estate taxes.

Yeeessh.

The Court was a little more lenient in 2013, sort of. While they disallowed any interest on the rental schedule, the Court did allow substantiated mortgage interest in excess of claimed interest as an itemized deduction.

The IRS next went in to bayonet the wounded and dead: it wanted a 20% accuracy-related penalty.

Of course they did.

A common defense to this penalty is reliance on a tax professional.

Taxpayers used a tax preparer for 2013 and 2013.

Seems to me they have a potential defense.

The Court then drops this:

Although their returns were prepared by a paid income tax preparer, the return preparer used income and expense amounts petitioner provided. Apparently, no source documents underlying the deductions were provided to the return preparer; according to the return preparer, petitioners had ‘horrible books and records.’”

And this is a witness for the taxpayers?

Because petitioners did not furnish the return preparer with complete and accurate information, they failed to establish that their reliance upon the return preparer constitutes ‘reasonable cause’ and ‘good faith’ with respect to the underpayments of tax.”

Wow.

I get it. The preparer might have gotten them out of a penalty on a technical issue, but given the poor quality of the records the preparer could not get them out of a penalty for the numbers themselves.

The taxpayers probably would have done better by not bringing their preparer to testify.

And then I noticed: it was a “pro se” case.

Which means that the taxpayers represented themselves.

COMMENT: Pro se does not mean that your preparer is not there. I for example can appear before the Tax Court as part of a pro se. I would then be there as a witness, and I would not considered to be “practicing.”

In this case the taxpayers made a bad call by bringing in their preparer.

The case for the home gamers is Lawson v Commissioner.

A Twist On A Penalty

I am looking at a tax case. There is no suspense or twist, but there was something at the end that caught my attention.

The case involves an Uber driver.

He deducted the following:

(1)  Vehicle expenses of $44,729

(2)  Travel expenses of $6,915

(3)  Repairs and maintenance of $5,345

(4)  Insurance of $3,349

(5)  Cleaning expenses of $751

I am not seeing a whole lot of technical here. Hopefully he kept documentation and receipts. Just sort, label, copy and provide to the IRS.

But the story goes chippy.

(1) The travel expenses were for trips to Florida seeking medical treatment.

COMMENT: So this is not a business deduction. It instead is a medical deduction, which he might not be able to use if he doesn’t have enough to itemize.

               He provided no documentation for these trips.

(2)  He had nothing to support the repairs and maintenance.

Odd. One would have thought he had a primary garage, and that garage could provide a printout. It might not account for every dollar deducted, but it should be a good chunk.

(3)  He did not provide documentation for the insurance, not even the name of the insurance company.

This is getting strange. I am beginning to wonder if he is a protester.

(4)  It turns out that the cleaning was dry cleaning. That may or may not be deductible, hinging on whether he was dry-cleaning a uniform. I am, for example, unable to deduct my dry cleaning, but then I do not wear a uniform.

Again, he offered no documentation.

(5)  I am curious about the vehicle expenses. Forty-four grand is a lot.

Turns out he deducted approximately 70,000 miles.

Problem is, he drove only 9,439 miles as an Uber driver.

Oh, oh.

On top of that he deducted both actual expenses and mileage.

No can do.

The IRS wanted almost $18,000 in tax.

I am not surprised, considering that the disallowance of the deductions swelled both his income tax and self-employment tax simultaneously.

The IRS also wanted a substantial-understatement penalty of almost $3,600.

COMMENT: This penalty applies when the additional tax due is more than the larger of $5,000 or 10% of the corrected tax liability (before any payments). The penalty is 20%, and it hurts.

Frankly, I am thinking he is doomed. He does not have a prayer, having provided no documentation for his expenses, even the easy documentation.

Twist: this penalty has to be approved by an IRS supervisor.

Happens all the time.

But the IRS failed to submit evidence to the Court that it was approved.

The IRS tried to reopen the record to submit said evidence.

Too late. The taxpayer had the right to object.

What would you do?

Of course. You object.

So did the taxpayer.

Without the evidence the Tax Court bounced the substantial accuracy penalty.

Mind you, he still owed tax of almost $18,000, but he did not owe the penalty.

The case for the home gamers is Semere Misgina Hagos v Commissioner.

You Receive A Wage Garnishment

I was minding my own business. My partner sweeps into my office and says we have to take care of something right away – hopefully that very afternoon.

Hey, I am a career CPA. Some level of ADD is almost requisite to longevity in this profession.

He drops an IRS Form 668-W on my desk.

There is something I had not seen in a while.

What is a 668-W?

A wage garnishment. The IRS refers to it as a “levy.” If you get to this point, you have almost gone through the belly of the whale. The IRS has sent notice after notice, giving you a chance to contest, request abatement, defer collection or set up a payment plan. You have ignored them all. They got angry. They are now garnishing your paycheck.

This notice goes to your employer, and your employer is charged with notifying you. Your employer is going to garnish your next paycheck. Your employer does not want to go resistance here, as an employer becomes liable should they just blow it off. And then there is a 50% “hi there” penalty on top of that.

The IRS publishes tables telling you how much you get to keep. Say that the you are married, have one kid and receive a weekly net check of $1,017.65. The table indicates that you can keep $541.35. The employer withholds and remits the $476.30 balance ($1,017.65 – 541.35) to the IRS.

On the upside, the IRS is not touching your health insurance or 401(k) withholding. On the down side, it is jonesing the rest of your paycheck.

Can you live on $541.35?

That is not the point.

The point is that the IRS wants you to reenter the grid and establish a payment plan. Once you do so, the IRS will release the levy. As far as they are concerned, you should have done so already. The levy is to slap you into reality.

And you have forfeited some (at this point) important procedural rights.

Say that there is a question whether you actually owe some or all of the tax. Had you paid attention to the increasingly strident string of IRS notices, you would have noticed one titled “Notice of Intent to Levy.”

That one is serious. Not as serious as the 668-W, of course, but serious.

At that time, you had the right to request an IRS appeals hearing, called a Collection Due Process hearing. That puts you in front of an Appeals officer to plead your case, including whether you actually owe some or all of what the IRS wants.

Say you ignored the Notice of Intent.

It is a year or two later and you receive the 668-W.

You bring it to me. You may note that I am not humored.

Guess what important right you forfeited by ignoring the earlier notice?

That’s right: being able to argue whether you actually owe some or all of the tax.

That is dandy if there is no question whether you owe the money.

Not my situation. The friend has a very good case that he does not owe (at least some) of the tax.

But we are past the point where I can force a collection hearing to talk about the matter.

Is it hopeless?

Nope. A proficient tax practitioner still has tricks.

Like?

Like an offer in compromise. You know, those middle of the night commercials to settle millions of dollars of tax debt for the change in your pocket.

Is the friend broke?

Not the point.

What is the point then?

There is more than one type of offer. The one I am considering has nothing to do with your ability to pay. It instead has to do with whether you actually owe the money. The first addresses doubt as to collectability. The second addresses doubt as to liability.

It is one way to get the IRS to review the file with an eye as to liability.

Is this what we are going to do?

Doubt it.

Why not?

Because an offer will stay that levy only so long. The IRS can still demand a weekly wage levy WHILE they are considering the offer. Will it happen? Maybe yes, maybe no, but why run the risk?

What is an alternative?

File an appeal.

An appeal shuts down all collections action, meaning that I do not have to bank on the IRS’ better nature to stay that levy. Appeals allows me to introduce evidence that the friend does not owe all the assessment. I am also hoping to get penalties abated, at least some, but that would be a bonus.

Should the friend’s situation have gotten to this point?

I am sympathetic. Those who have followed me know that I am generally pro-taxpayer, but that is not what we have here. There were notices, which were ignored. There was a statutory notice of deficiency, which was ignored. After the statutory notice, taxes and penalties were officially assessed, which was also ignored. There was a chance for reconsideration, which was ignored. 

During all this there was ALWAYS a chance for a payment plan.

As I said, you may note that I am not humored.

The Abbott Laboratories 401(k)

Something caught my eye recently about student loans. A 401(k) is involved, so there is a tax angle.

Abbott Laboratories is using their “Freedom 2 Save” program to:

… enable full-time and part-time employees who qualify for the company's 401(k) – and who are also contributing 2 percent of their eligible pay toward student loans – to receive an amount equivalent to the company's traditional 5 percent "match" deposited into their 401(k) plans. Program recipients will receive the match without requiring any 401(k) contribution of their own.”

Abbott will put money into an employee’s 401(k), even if the employee is not himself/herself contributing.

As I understand it, the easiest way to substantiate that one’s student loan is 2% or more of one’s eligible pay is to allow Abbott to withhold and remit the monthly loan amount. For that modest disclosure of personal information, one receives a 5% employer “match” contribution.

I get it. It can be difficult to simultaneously service one’s student loan and save for retirement.

Let’s take this moment to discuss the three main ways to fund a 401(k) account.

(1)  What you contribute. Let’s say that you set aside 6% of your pay.

(2)  What your employer is committed to contributing. In this example, say that the company matches the first 4% and then ½ of the next 2%. This is called the “match,” and in this example it would be 5%.

(3)  A discretionary company contribution. Perhaps your employer had an excellent year and wants to throw a few extra dollars into the kitty. Do not be skeptical: I have seen it happen. Not with my own 401(k), mind you (I am a career CPA, and CPA firms are notorious), but by a client. 

Abbott is not the first, by the way. Prudential Retirement did something similar in 2016.

The reason we are talking about this is that the IRS recently blessed one of these plans in a Private Letter Ruling. A PLR is an IRS opinion requested by, and issued to, a specific taxpayer. One generally has to write a check (the amount varies depending upon the issue), but in return one receives some assurance from the IRS on how a transaction is going to work-out taxwise. Depending upon, a PLR is virtually required tax procedure. Consider certain corporate mergers or reorganizations. There may be billions of dollars and millions of shareholders involved. One gets a PLR – period – as the downside might be career-ending.

Tax and retirement pros were (and are) concerned how plans like Abbott’s will pass the “contingent benefits” prohibition. Under this rule, a company cannot make other employee benefits – say health insurance – contingent on an employee making elective deferrals into the company’s 401(k) plan.

The IRS decided that the prohibition did not apply as the employees were not contributing to the 401(k) plan. The employer was. The employees were just paying their student loans.

By the way, Abbott Laboratories has subsequently confirmed that it was they who requested and received the PLR.

Technically, a PLR is issued to a specific taxpayer and this one is good only for Abbott Laboratories. Not surprisingly there are already calls to codify this tax result. Once in the Code or Regulations, the result would be standardized and a conservative employer would not feel compelled to obtain its own PLR.

I doubt you and I will see this in our 401(k)s.  This strikes me as a “big company” thing, and a big company with a lot of younger employees to boot.

Great recruitment feature, though.

Oh Henry!

It is a classic tax case.

Let’s travel back to the 1950s.

Let us introduce Robert Lee Henry, both an attorney and a CPA.  He was a tax expert, but he did not restrict his practice solely to tax.

He was also an accomplished competitive horse rider. After he returned from military service, the Army discontinued its horse show team. In response, he organized the United States horse show civilian team.

He met the wealthy and influential, benefiting his practice considerably.

Then he had to give up riding. Heart issues, I believe.

But he was quite interested in continuing to meet the to-do’s and well-connected.

He bought a boat.

He traded it in for a bigger boat.

He bought a flag for the boat. It was red, white and blue and had the numbers “1040.”

People would ask. He would present his background as a tax expert. He was meeting and greeting.

His doctor told him to relax and take time off. Robert Lee called his son, and together they took the boat from New York to Florida. They then decided to spend the winter, as they were already there.

Robert Lee deducted 100% of the boat expenses.

QUESTION: Can Robert Lee deduct the expenses?

NERDY DETAIL: The tax law changed after this case was decided, so the decision today would be easier than it was back in the 1950s. Still, could he deduct the boat expenses in the 1950s?

The key issue was whether the boat expenses were “ordinary and necessary.” That standard is fundamental to tax law and has been around since the beginning. Just because a business activity pays for something does not mean that it is deductible. It has to strain through the “ordinary and necessary” colander.

In truth, this is not a difficult standard in most cases. It can however catch one in an oddball or perhaps (overly) aggressive situation.

Robert Lee was an accomplished rider, and he had developed a book of business because of his equestrian accomplishments. He monetized his equestrian contacts. He now saw an opportunity to meet the same crowd of folk by means of a boat.

Problem: Robert Lee did not use the boat to entertain or transport existing clients or prospective contacts.

And there is the hook. Had he used the boat to entertain, he could more easily show an immediate and proximate relationship between the boat, its expenses and his legal and accounting practice.

He instead had to argue that the boat was a promotional scheme, akin to advertising. It was not as concrete as saying that he schmoozed rich people in the Atlantic on his boat.

He had to run the “ordinary and necessary” gauntlet.

Let’s start.

He continued to have a sizeable equestrian clientele after he left competitive riding.

Good.

He was however unable to provide the Court a single example of a client who came to him because of the boat, at least until years later. Even then, there still wasn’t much in the way of fees.

Bad.

So what, argued Robert Lee. How is this different from buying a full-page ad in an upscale magazine?

Quite a bit, said the Court. You gave up riding for health reasons. There is no question that you derived tremendous personal enjoyment from riding. You have now substituted boating for riding. Enjoyment does not mean that there is no business deduction, but it does mean that the Court may look with a more skeptical eye. It would have been an easier decision for us if you had bought a full-page ad. There is no personal joy in advertising.

As a professional, I have to develop and cultivate many contacts – business, social, personal, political – retorted Robert Lee. One never knows who one will meet, and it takes money to meet money. That is my business reason.

Could not agree with you more, replied the Court. Problem is, that does not make every expenditure deductible. What you are doing is not ordinary. Let’s be frank, Robert Lee, the average attorney/CPA does not keep a yacht.

They would if they could, muttered Robert Lee.

Even if we agreed the expenses were “ordinary,” continued the Court, we have to address whether they are “necessary.” This test is heightened when expenses may have been incurred primarily for personal reasons. You did sail from New York to Florida, by the way. With your son. And you deducted 100% of it.

I am meeting rich people, countered Robert Lee.

Perhaps, answered the Court, but there must be a proximate relationship between the expense and the activity. What you are talking about is remote and incidental. It is difficult to clear the “necessary” hurdle with your “someday I’ll” argument.

Robert Lee shot back: my point should be self-evident to any professional person.

COMMENT: Folks, do not say this when you are trying to persuade a Court.

The Court decided that Robert Lee could not prove either “ordinary” or “necessary.”

The conclusion that the expenditures here involved were primarily related to petitioner’s pleasure and only incidentally related to his business seems inescapable.”

The Court denied his boat deductions.

Our case this time for the home-gamers and riders was Henry v Commissioner.

Issuing 1099s As Retaliation

I continue to be surprised when people use IRS forms as retaliation.

The form of choice tends to be a 1099. The intent – of course – is to provoke an IRS audit.

There was an incessant legal battle several years back at a Cincinnati CPA firm that detonated. I happen to know the parties involved, and I was interested in the use of 1099s as weapons of war. The senior partner in the imbroglio however was not amused with my interest, seemed surprised that so much of the combat was available to one who could search legal records, and told me where to take a long walk. Quite the charmer.

I am reading a case involving doctors in Illinois. There was an anesthesiologist (Nicholas Angelopoulos - “Nick”) who went into business with an orthopedist (Hall).  Hall owned a company (Keystone) which employed Nick and two other doctors.

There was a cost-sharing arrangement among the doctors, which is common enough but which seemed to change without much explanation.

There was question whether Nick and the other two doctors were ever owners of Keystone (an S corporation). There were e-mails, draft shareholder agreements and meeting agendas, and the doctors were charged for equipment purchased by the practice.  Dr Hall, however, maintained that he was the only shareholder.

OK.

There was an LLC called WACHN, comprised of our four doctors plus another and which purchased medical condominiums. Each of the doctors kicked-in $110,000 and the LLC borrowed the rest, although the doctors had to personally guarantee the debt. Nick said that he never signed the operating agreement and that his signature was forged by use of a signature stamp.

Odd.

Each of the four doctors was required to contribute $100,000 towards a “cash reserve” in Keystone’s bank account. Hall argued that it was necessary to avoid paying checking fees, and that – eventually – there would be more money to distribute to everyone. Nick thought that he was paying for his ownership in Keystone.

COMMENT: Folks, if your bank requires hundreds of thousands of dollars to avoid fees, you really need to consider another bank.

There were questions about how the numbers were calculated and allocated among the doctors in Keystone, but Hall assured the doctors that the practice manager (Hall’s brother in law, by the way) had assured him everything was in order.

I feel better.

In 2007 two of the doctors left.

Later in 2007, Nick told Hall that he too was leaving.

In March, 2008 Hall gave Nick a hand-written sheet stating that Nick owed $151,769. Hall, being a good sport, said that he would offset the $110,000 that Nick had put into WACHN, but Nick had to transfer his interest to Hall. Hall would then – back to that good sport thing – “forgive” the remaining $40,769. Hall did not address removing Nick as a guarantor for WACHN’s debt, though.

Nick told Hall where to go.

Keystone issued Nick a 1099 for $159,577.

Hall said that Nick still owed $100,000 toward the Keystone cash reserves and $28,000 towards the WACHN buy-in. There was also a $38,010 bonus that Hall was paying Nick on the way out, being a good sport and all. Nick responded that he had paid everything he was supposed to pay, and – by the way – what bonus?

Sure enough, in 2011 the IRS swooped in on Nick.

Mission accomplished.

Turns out the $38,010 bonus was right. That however left a bogus $121,567 on the 1099.

Let’s fast forward through the rest.

Nick sued Hall and Keystone. There were several lawsuits, but we are concerned here with the tax-related lawsuit.

The Court decided that Keystone and Hall filed a fraudulent 1099 because of “spite arising out of the larger disputes between the parties.” Code Section 7434 allows for damages in this circumstance, and the Court gets to decide.

The Court awarded Nick damages of $178,954.

Our case this time was Angelopoulos v Keystone Orthopedic Specialists.