SBA Paycheck Protection Program

The last couple of weeks here at Command Center have been … unprecedented.

We have sent employees home, although we have not let anyone go.

Critical personnel (including me somehow) are still coming in, although we are instituting a policy of one-person-in-the-office-at-a-time.  

I understand working at home, but a typical accounting firm is not geared to work from home indefinitely. For one thing, it takes administrative staff to keep the information and document flow going to the at-homers, and there is no administrative staff.

Fortunately, the IRS and many (if not most) states have acknowledged the reality of the situation and are allowing extensions of time to file and pay. There was probably no choice: preparers were not going to be able to get the work done anyway. It is likely that your return will be extended this year, even if you have never extended before.

Some of our clients have shut down. One, for example, works with product promotion at Kroger’s. Have you been to a Kroger’s recently? The last problem they have is moving merchandise.

Let’s talk about something. There is a brand-new SBA program for emergency funding. It may be that you have never considered government assistance before, but these are extreme times.

We are talking about the “Paycheck Protection Program.” Congress took an existing SBA loan program and sweetened the pot. Its purpose is – flat out – to encourage employers to retain employees and – if the employer has already furloughed employees -to hire them back.

Here are the general features of the program:

(1)  It expires June 30, 2020.

(2)  Think businesses with less 500 employees, but there are exceptions.

(3)  In a bit of a surprise for the SBA, the program includes nonprofits (again, with less than 500 employees)

(4)  The maximum loan amount is 2.5 times average payroll during the one-year period before the date the loan is made.

a.    With adjustments for new businesses, of course.

(5)  That maximum caps out at $10 million.

(6)  The loan is principally to fund payroll (with some limitations), but it will also cover health insurance, rent, utilities and some interest expense.

(7)  Now think math:

A times B

A is the sum of those expenses described in (6) for the 8 weeks after you get the loan.

(8)  Let’s talk B.

B is a fraction. The government wants to know whether your workforce has gone up or down in number.

The numerator is going to be the number of employees between February 15 and June 30, 2020.

The denominator is the number of employees during the same period in 2019.

There are adjustments for real-life situations that do not fit the above periods.

There is also a test which substitutes payroll dollars for the number of employees. You fail the test if your payroll reduction (dollar-wise) exceeds 25%.

(9)  So what, you ask.

Let’s say you have 17 employees for the 2020 period.

Let’s say you had 16 employees for the 2019 period.

Fraction-wise, that is over 100%. Let’s round that down to 100%.

Let’s multiply that 100% by something.

What is the something?

The loan you took out.

Let’s say the loan was $125,000.

Multiply $125,000 by 100%.

You get $125,000.

The government will forgive 100 PERCENT of the loan! The entire $125,000 is gone, forgiven, paid-off, hasta luego, soyonara.

Wow.

(10)      Is there a follow-up to that?

Yep.

Generally, the forgiveness of debt results in income to the person whose debt was forgiven. It is why people get those 1099s in the mail from the credit card companies which have given up on collecting.

For purposes of this loan, the forgiveness will NOT count as income.

So let’s get this straight. You keep your employees on board. The government loans you money for your payroll. The government forgives the money. You walk away scot-free.

What happens if you don’t get to 100%? Then a portion of the loan remains. You pay interest not to exceed 4% and repay that portion of the loan over a period of up to 10 years. Still … not bad.

Folks, if this is you – please check it out before the deadline or the funding runs out.

Family First Coronavirus Response Act

Congress passed and the President signed a coronavirus-related bill this week. While mainly addressing employment benefits, it also includes payroll-tax-related provisions to mitigate the effect of the benefit expansion on employers.

Following is a recap of the Act. It is intended as an introduction and quick reference only. Please review the Act itself for detailed questions.

The Family First Corona Virus Response Act has two key employment-benefit components. Employers are to be reimbursed for the benefit expansion via a tax credit mechanism.

A. The Emergency Paid Sick Leave Act

1.  Private employers employing less than 500 employees shall provide an employee with paid sick time if:

i. The employee is subject to quarantine or isolation due to COVID-19.

ii.  The employee has been advised by a health care provider to self-quarantine due to concerns related to COVID– 19.

iii.  The employee is experiencing symptoms of COVID– 19 and seeking a medical diagnosis.

iv. The employee is caring for an individual described in (i) or has been advised as described in (ii).

v. The employee is caring for a son or daughter of such employee if the school or place of care of the son or daughter has been closed, or the child care provider of such son or daughter is unavailable, due to COVID–19 precautions.

vi. The employee is experiencing any other substantially similar condition specified by the Secretary of Health and Human Services in consultation with the Secretary of the Treasury and the Secretary of Labor.

2. Full-time employees are entitled to 80 hours of paid sick time.

3. Part-time employees are entitled to the average number of hours worked on over a 2-week period.  For employees with varying schedules, the employer shall use the employee’s average number of hours per day over the 6-month period ending on the date the employee takes leave under the Act.

4. If an employee takes time off for self-care, the employee shall be compensated at the employee’s regular pay rate.

     i. Not to exceed $511 per day and $5,110 in the aggregate

5. If an employee takes time off for a sick family member or child, the employee shall be compensated at 2/3 of the employee’s regular pay rate.

     i. Not to exceed $200 per day and $2,000 in the aggregate

6. There are comparable provisions for the self-employed.

7. The Act expires on December 31, 2020.

8. The Labor Secretary is authorized to exempt employers with less than 50 employees if the requirements would imperil the viability of the business.

9. Employers who violate this Act shall be considered to have failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and be subject to penalties related to such a violation.

B. Emergency Family and Medical Leave Expansion Act (E-FMLA)

1. The Act expands coverage of the Family and Medical Leave Act (“FMLA”) for employers with fewer than 500 employees. Employees are typically not eligible for FMLA leave until they have worked at least 12 months and 1250 hours. 

i.  For purposes of E-FMLA, this threshold is reduced to 30 days.

2.  E-FMLA applies if the employee leave is to care for a child under 18 if the school or place of care has been closed or child care provider is unavailable due to a public health emergency.

3. Protected leave can be for up to 12 weeks, but the first 10 days may consist of unpaid leave.

4.  The employee shall be compensated not less than two-thirds of the employee’s regular rate of pay.

i. Not to exceed $200 per day and $10,000 in the aggregate (for each employee)  

5. There are comparable provisions for the self-employed.

6. The Act expires on December 31, 2020.

7. The Labor Secretary is authorized to exempt employers with less than 50 employees if the requirements would imperil the viability of the business.

8. Employers who violate this Act shall be considered to have failed to pay minimum wages in violation of the FLSA and be subject to penalties related to such a violation.

C. Tax Credits

1. The compensation paid under the Act is not subject to the Old-Age, Survivors and Disability portion of FICA (that is, the 6.2%).

2. The compensation paid under the Act is subject to the Hospital Insurance portion of FICA (that is, the 1.45%).

3. On a quarterly basis, employers can claim a payroll tax credit for the sum of the following:

                a. Wages paid under this Act

b. Allocable “qualified health plan expenses” 

      ... think health insurance

c. The employer portion of Hospital Insurance (that is, the 1.45%)

4. Treasury is authorized to issue Regulations waiving penalties for not making payroll tax deposits in anticipation of the credit to be allowed.

5. The credit is refundable if it exceeds the amount the employer owes in payroll tax.

6. Employer taxable income is to be increased by the amount of payroll credit received.

           i. Otherwise there would be a double tax benefit.    

Can You Get Penalty Abatement If Your Accountant Dies?

What if you give your tax documents to your CPA and your CPA dies before preparing your return?

I am reading a case where that happened.

I will lead with this: the IRS assessed almost $41,000 in penalties.

The Willetts had a longstanding relationship with their CPA (Goode). In August, 2015 they gave her all the tax documents to prepare their 2014 tax return.

Time passed and the Willetts attempted to reach Goode, but without success. In October, she finally responded, explaining she had been ill and in a nursing home. She would cover any penalties and interest associated with their return.

In November, 2015 (mind you, the return was due October 15) Mrs Willett visited Goode at her home. Ms Goode assured her she would bounce back and finish their return.

That was the last time the Willetts spoke with Goode, who passed away in February, 2017.

The Willetts had some foreboding, however, as they contacted other CPA firms to address their 2014 return. There were obstacles – Goode had original documents, for example – but they were trying. The Willetts were told that the firms were already too busy with individual returns or that their return was too complex.

COMMENT: Folks, that sounds odd to this practitioner. Methinks there is more to the story.

They finally found and hired a CPA in June, 2016. They filed their 2014 return in September, 2016 – eleven months late.

You already know the IRS came back hot with penalties and interest.

The Willetts took the case to a District Court in California.

COMMENT: That means that they had to pay the penalties and then litigate for a refund. Had they gone to Tax Court, they would not have had to pay the penalties and interest before bringing suit. That would be the upside. The downside to the Tax Court is that the judges are tax specialists. It is a little harder to spin a tale to a specialist, as opposed to a district judge who is a generalist and hears a spectrum of cases.

Penalties can be abated for reasonable cause, but there is a case out there – Boyle – that greatly circumscribes a taxpayer’s ability to rely on an accountant in order to abate penalties. The Boyle decision (sort of) divided tax practice into two categories for purpose of penalty abatement:

(1) The first category is “routine” compliance, such as looking up when a tax return is due and making sure it gets filed by then.

(2) The second category includes professional advice, such as whether a Code section affects a taxpayer or what certain provisions from the 2017 Tax Cut and Jobs Act even mean.

The Boyle court acknowledged that one could rely on an accountant for column two issues, but one probably could not rely for purposes of column one.  The IRS has subsequently interpreted Boyle aggressively, arguing that the qualifier “probably” is not even required in the preceding sentence.

So how does Boyle work when your CPA dies? Is it more like column one or more like column two?

The Court discussed issues surrounding taxpayer reliance on an agent, but at heart the Court was looking at someone who relied on an accountant – apparently a sole practitioner – who was quite ill, in and out of nursing facilities and incapable of producing timely work.

Question: what would a reasonable person do?

After all, the concept is reasonable cause.

The Court was not at all persuaded that reasonable people would wait endlessly for their accountant to recover from a nursing home stay before preparing their return. A reasonable person would seek-out another accountant – even if it was a one-off engagement - in order to meet their tax responsibilities.

There was no reasonable cause.

I admire the Willetts’ loyalty to their practitioner, but their delay cost them $41 grand.

Taxpayer Fail On Discharging Taxes Through Bankruptcy

I have an IRS notice sitting on my desk. I meant to call the IRS about it on Friday, but it got away from me. I will call on Monday. It disgruntles me, as I have already called and considered the matter resolved.

There you have why practitioners get upset with the IRS about hair-trigger or bogus notices: one has only so much time.

My partner brought in this client. They were chronic nonfilers, and we prepared the better part of a decade’s worth of returns for them. I lost humor with them when the husband insulted one of my accountants. Granted, it is unlikely that a younger accountant would know what I know, but the incident was uncalled for. The husband and I had a very different and blunt conversation.

They spoke with my partner about discharging the taxes through bankruptcy, which is one reason I was brought in.

Short answer: forgetaboutit, at least for a while.

There are four basic requirements to discharging taxes in bankruptcy. I have not often seen the fourth reason, but I was recently reading a case involving that elusive fourth.

Here are the four requirements:

(1)  The taxes were due at least three years ago. Obtain an extension and you must include the extension period in the three years.

(2)  Fail to file and the taxes are not dischargeable until at least two years after filing.

(3)  The IRS must have assessed the taxes at least 240 days before filing for bankruptcy.

(4)  The return must not be fraudulent, and the taxpayer(s) cannot willfully have attempted to avoid the tax.

Let’s go through an example.

(1)  Let’s say we are talking about your 2016 tax return. If you filed on April 15, 2017, the first rule gives you a minimum date of April 15, 2020.

(2)  Let’s say you filed that 2016 return on July 21, 2018. The second rule gives you a minimum date of July 21, 2020.

(3)  Let’s say the IRS posted (that is, assessed) the 2016 return shortly after filing – perhaps July 31, 2018. There is no problem with the 240-day rule.

(4)  Let’s also say there was no attempt to evade tax. It was irresponsible not to file, but there is nothing there other than irresponsibility.

Seems to me that the earliest you can file for discharge via bankruptcy would be July 22, 2020 – the latest of the above dates.

Let’s talk about a case involving the fourth requirement.

There is a doctor. Her husband was a CPA – he lost his license after a conviction for tax evasion.

She let her husband prepare the returns for years 2004 through 2014.

I would not have done that, but - to me – a CPA losing his license for tax evasion is a HUGE dealbreaker, husband or not.

The entered into a payment plan. They missed some payments.

Like night follows day.

They were living the high life. They had an expensive house (Newport), but they wanted a more expensive house (Dwight). They bough Dwight on a land contract, hoping to sell Newport.

They then carried two houses, as Newport did not sell.

Now they were tight on cash, and they fell behind with the IRS.

Mind you, that did not stop them from sending their kids to a private school, racking up $325,000 in the process. They also took trips to Mexico and Puerto Rico, as well as parking a Jaguar and a Lexus in the driveway.

Newport was foreclosed.

In 2016 we have the bankruptcy.

The IRS moved to exercise its lien on the Dwight property.

Husband came up with a brilliant scheme.  He sold Dwight for a swan song to a former client.  He would pay the IRS the few dollars that came his way from the “sale,” and he and his wife would rent the Dwight property back from the former client.

Puuhleeeese, said the IRS.

The Court agreed with the IRS. It spotted a willful attempt to evade or avoid, thereby nixing any discharge of taxes although the couple had filed for bankruptcy.

Why? They failed the fourth requirement.

The case for the home gamers is re Harold 2020 PTC 58 (Bankr. E.D. Michigan 2020)

Corporation Still Owed Penalties Even After Its Officers Died

I had a conversation this week with another practitioner.

He has an elderly client who is having memory issues. This client in turn is represented by another person – an agent. The agent refuses to sign or provide consent to the filing of the elderly client’s tax return.

My first thought was that there must be odd stuff on the client’s return, but I am assured that is not the case. The agent is – how to say this delicately – not a likeable person.

The practitioner asked me what I would do.

The issue is that a tax return is confidential information. We – as CPAs – are not allowed to release a return, even to the IRS, without permission from the client. The IRS requests that this permission be in writing, which is why you sign a form and return it to your preparer before he/she electronically files your return.

Theory is easy. Life is messy.

Let’s segue by looking at a penalty case.

The taxpayer was protesting $58 thousand in penalties.

Turns out the taxpayer was an S corporation. This type of corporation (normally) does not pay tax. Rather it divides up its income among its shareholders (on Form K-1, to be specific), who in turn include those numbers on their individual tax returns.

For years 2011 through 2013 the company did not file returns with the IRS.

Yep, that is going to hurt.

But it did issue K-1s to its shareholders, so (supposedly) all taxes were timely and correctly paid to the Treasury.

Seems odd. Why would the company issue K-1s but not file the return itself with the IRS?

Turns out that there were a number of related family companies – 19 of them, in fact. The patriarch of the family (Victor) hired a CPA (Tapling) to function as CFO for all his companies.

Victor was diagnosed with and treated for cancer. He died December 30, 2013.

We are talking about penalties for years 2011 through 2013, so I suspect that Victor’s illness is involved.

In 2010 Tapling himself was diagnosed with cancer. He eventually died from complications in 2016.

Tapling prepared and distributed the K-1s for years 2011 through 2013 but did not however send the returns to the IRS. Why? Perhaps he was waiting for the passing of authority within the family. Perhaps he did not consider it within his corporate authority to actually sign the returns. Maybe the transition involved family members who wanted Tapling gone, and he did not want to provide easy reasons for his dismissal.    

The IRS came in hot.

It led with the Boyle decision (of which we have spoken before), arguing that the corporation was more than Victor or Tapling. It had a Board of Directors, for example, and the Board could have – should have – stepped in to be sure that returns were being filed.

The company argued that Boyle involved an agent. This situation involved corporate officers and not agents. Its officers were gravely ill and did not timely discharge their responsibilities, much to the company’s detriment.

I see both sides.

To me, the IRS and the company should compromise. Perhaps the IRS could abate 50% of the penalty, and the company would hold its nose and write a check. Both sides could acknowledge that the other side had valid points. Life is messy.

Not a chance:

Consequently the court grants defendant’s motion for summary judgement and denies plaintiff’s motion for summary judgement.”

The IRS won it all.

Our case this time for the home gamers is Hunter Maintenance & Leasing Corp., Inc.v United States.

When Bidding Is Not Marketing

I was talking with a client recently. He is a real estate developer, and he was telling me about a tense run-in several years ago with the county about a proposed development. Think NIMBY (not in my backyard) and you have the context.

Believe it or not, there is a tax issue there.

Let’s set it up by discussing Hisham Ashkouri (HA).

HA was an architect. He was bidding on projects in Washington state and Utah. He was also bidding on projects in Libya and in the Republic of Tartarstan, which is in Russia.

Those last two are certainly off the beaten path.

Using different companies, he submitted development bid proposals. I am not sure what was in these bid proposals, but over three years (2009 – 2011), he deducted over $500 grand in bid expenses.

Sounds expensive.

The IRS audited the three years.

And disallowed the bid expenses.

That doesn’t sound right, thought I.

HA argued that he had deducted marketing and promotion expenses.

Then HA went foot-in-mouth:

“If any of those projects had resulted in ‘a real estate transaction …, I would be having 20 percent ownership.’”

Let’s introduce Code Section 263A. That bad boy generally deals with the acquisition of property, and its intention is to make you capitalize everything under the sun when you acquire – including constructing or developing – property. “Capitalize” is accounting-speak for depreciating something rather than deducting it immediately.

If you depreciate over one year, then I suppose the net effect is approximately the same. If you have to depreciate over 39 years, well, it is going to hurt.

HA fired off first and strong:

The deductions …"could not be capitalized as they were used for marketing and promotion with no real estate transaction." Although petitioners fail to cite any authority in support of that claim, they are correct that section 263A does not require the capitalization of "marketing, selling, advertising, and distribution costs." 

The Court however nailed the issue:

Mr. Ashkouri's testimony regarding the projects he pursued was not particularly detailed, but we take him as having acknowledged that, had he been awarded any of the projects, he would have acquired an ownership interest in the property being developed. He did not identify any project for which he claimed deductions in which he would not have received an ownership interest had he been awarded the contract.”

Every project would have resulted in the acquisition of an ownership interest. This is not marketing or promotion in a conventional sense. HA’s possible ownership interest at the end lands these transactions within the Section 263A dragnet.

So what? He did not win any of these bids, and he would get to deduct the bid costs when the contract was awarded to someone else. Granted, the deduction might be held-up a year or two – until the bid was awarded – but HA would eventually get his deduction.

Here comes the Scooby Doo mystery portion of the case:

But petitioners have not established when (if ever) the development contracts Mr. Ashkouri sought were awarded to others, when Mr. Ashkouri received written notice that no contract would be awarded, or when he abandoned his bid or proposal for each project.”

Seriously? He could not show that the bid went to someone else or was withdrawn entirely? I am not getting this at all.

The Tax Court then backed-up and ran over the body a second time – apparently to make sure that it had stopped breathing:

Even if we were to accept that the expenses in issue were not subject to deferral under section 1.263A-1(e)(3)(ii)(T), Income Tax Regs., we would still conclude that respondent properly disallowed the deductions for architectural or contract services claimed on the Schedules C for Mr. Ashkouri's proprietorship because petitioners did not adequately substantiate the expenses underlying the claimed deductions. In general, section 162(a) allows a deduction for "all the ordinary and necessary expenses paid or incurred during the taxable year in carrying on any trade or business". When called upon by the Commissioner, however, a taxpayer must substantiate his expenses.”

Bam! Even if HA provided evidence about the bid outcomes, the Court was still going to say “No.”

Back to my real estate guy.

What was the tax issue back when?

His transaction involved real estate development. There is no question that he would have had an ownership interest if the project went through; in fact, he would be the only owner.

Let’s say he incurred significant expenses – legal, engineering and the like – while battling the county.

Would have had to capitalize those expenses rather than deduct them right away?

Faxing A Return To The IRS

We recently prepared a couple of back California tax returns for a client.

The client had an accounting person who lived in California – at least on-and-off -for part of one year. The client itself is located in Tennessee and had little to do with California other than perhaps shipping product into the state. It is long-standing tax doctrine that having an employee in a state can subject a company to that state’s income tax, so I agreed that the client had to file for one year.

The second year was triggered by a one-off Form 1099 issued by someone in Los Angeles. The dollar amount was inconsequential, and I am still at a loss how California obtained this 1099 and why they burned the energy to trace it back to Tennessee. I am not convinced the client sold anything into California that second year. One could sell into Texas, for example, but have the check issued by corporate in Los Angeles.

The client did not care about the details. Just get California off their back.

California requested that we fax the returns to a unit rather than sending them through the regular system

And therein can exist a tax trap.

Let’s talk about it.

Seaview Trading LLC got itself into Tax Court for transacting in a tax shelter. The tax-gentle term is “listed transaction,” but you and I would just call it a shelter. At issue was a $35 million tax deduction, so we are talking big bucks.

The transaction happened in 2001.  The examination started in 2005. On July 27, 2005 the IRS sent Seaview a letter stating that it had never received its 2001 return.

Oh, oh.

This was a partnership, and for the year we are talking about there existed rather arcane audit rules. We will not need to get into the weeds about these rules, other than to say that failing to file a return was bad news for Seaview.

In 2005 Seaview’s accountant faxed a copy of the 2001 tax return to the IRS agent, stating that the return had been timely filed and that Seaview was providing a copy of what it had filed in 2002. He also included a certified mail receipt for the return.

The IRS maintained its position that it had never received the 2001 return. In 2010 the IRS issued its $35 million disallowance.

Fast forward to the Tax Court.

$35 million will do that.

The Court decided to review the case in two steps:

(1)  Did faxing the return to the agent in 2005 constitute “filing” the return?

(2)  If not, does the certified mail receipt constitute evidence of timely filing?

Personally, I would have reversed the order, as I consider certified mailing to be presumptive evidence of timely filing. That is why accountants recommend certified mail. It is less of an issue these days with electronic filing, but every now and then one may decide – or be required – to paper file. In that situation I would still recommend that one use certified mail.

The Court held that faxing the return to the agent did not constitute the filing of a return.

The tax literature observed and commented that faxing does not equal filing.

But there is a subtlety here: Seaview’s accountant indicated that he was supplying the agent a copy of a timely-filed 2001 return. By calling it a copy, the accountant was saying – at least indirectly – that the agent did not need to submit the return for regular processing. That said, it would be unfair for Seaview to later reverse course and argue that it intended for the agent to submit the return for processing.

The IRS won this round.

Now they go to round two: does the certified mail receipt provide Seaview with presumptive proof of timely mailing?

Seaview presents issues that we do not have with our client. We are not playing with listed transactions or obscure audit rules. California just wants its $800 minimum fee for a couple of years. They do not really care if our client actually owes. They want money.

Our administrative staff tried to fax the returns this past Friday but had problems with the fax number. I called the unit in California to explain the issue and discuss alternatives, but I never got to speak with an actual human being. I will try again (at least briefly; I have other things to do) on Monday. If California blows me off again, we will mail the returns.

I fear however that mailing the returns to general processing will cause issues, as the unit will probably issue some apocalyptic deathnote before gen pop routes the returns back to them. We will mail the returns to the specific unit and cross our fingers that not everyone there is “busy serving other customers.”

How I wish I had one of those jobs.

BTW, you can bet we will certify the mail.