The IRS Goes Rounds With Cohan

 

The decision begins with the IRS seeking taxes of $805,149, $1,145,104, $1,161,864, and $831,771 for years 2013 through 2016. The penalties were unsurprisingly also enormous.

I want to know what happened here.

The taxpayer was Mohammad Nasser Aboui, and he was the sole shareholder of an S corporation called HPPO. He owned several used vehicle lots, and in 2009 he put them into HPPO as its initial corporate capitalization.

It sounds like a tough business:

·       Most of HPPO customers had bad credit.

·       Many did not have a checking account and instead paid HPPO in cash.

·       HPPO financed between 90% and 95% of its sales.

·       Customers repaid their loans less than 10% of the time.

·       HPPO repossessed approximately 25% of the cars it sold within 3 or 4 months.

·       HPPO had quite the barter system going with its mechanics: the mechanic would work on HPPO cars in exchange for rent of HPPO’s garage space.

Around 2014 Aboui decided to close the business. There were serious family health issues and HPPO was not making any money.

The IRS started its audit in September 2015.

HPPO’s accountant was ill at the time and later died.

To its credit, the IRS waited.

More than 3 years later HPPO engaged another accountant to represent the audit.

The second accountant made immediate mistakes, such as getting HPPO’s accounting method wrong when dealing with the IRS Revenue Agent (RA).

COMMENT: More specifically, the accountant told the RA that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting. HPPO did not. In fact, it could not because inventory was a material income-producing factor.

The RA wanted HPPO’s books and records, including access to its accounting software. HPPO could provide much but not the software. Its software license expired when it left the vehicle business in 2018.

This is a nightmare.

HPPO did eventually reactivate the software, but it was too late to help with the RA.

The RA – being told by the second accountant that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting – decided to use bank statements to reconstruct gross income.

BTW HPPO wound up dismissing the second accountant.

The results were odd: HPPO had reported more sales for 2013 through 2015 – nearly $3.25 million - than was deposited at the bank.

The pattern reversed in 2016 when HPPO deposited approximately $539 grand more than it reported in sales.

COMMENT: I have an idea what happened.

The RA also saw following bad debt expense:

          2013             $1,069,739

          2014             $ 668,537

          2015             $ 902,967

          2016             $ 436,738    

Here is something about the cash basis of accounting: you cannot have bad debt expense. It makes sense when you remember that gross income is reported as monies are deposited. Bad debts are receivables that are never collected, meaning there is nothing to deposit. One never leaves home plate.

So, the RA disallowed the bad debt expense entirely.

I am pretty sure about my earlier hunch.

The RA also determined that HPPO had distributed the following monies to Aboui, one way or another:

          2013             $2,476,301

          2014             $1,704,329

          2015             $1,406,893

2016             $1,934,033

There were other issues too.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Remember what I said about reactivating the accounting software license? Aboui now presented thousands of pages to document cost of sales and other expenses. The Court encouraged the IRS to accept and review the new records.

The IRS said, “nah, we’re good.”

COMMENT: Strike one.

The Court started its opinion with HPPO’s sales.

The RA stated to the Court that HPPO used the overall cash basis of accounting.

Don’t think so, said the Court. The Court saw HPPO using the accrual basis of accounting for sales and the cash basis of accounting for everything else.

COMMENT: This is referred to as a hybrid method: a pinch of this, a sprinkle of that. If one is consistent – and the results are not misleading – a hybrid is an acceptable method of accounting.

The Court asked Treasury why it thought that HPPO used the cash basis of accounting.

Treasury replied that it had never said that.

The Court pointed out that the RA had said that she understood HPPO to be a cash basis taxpayer. To be fair, that is what the second accountant had told her.

Nope, never used the cash method insisted Treasury.

COMMENT: An explanation is in order here. Treasury Department attorneys take over when the matter goes to Court. Perhaps the attorneys meant “direct” Treasury. The RA – while working for the IRS which itself is part of the Treasury – would then be “indirect” Treasury. I am only speculating, as this unforced error makes no sense. Clearly it bothered the Court.

Strike two.

The Court then reasoned why HPPO was reporting more sales than it deposited in the bank: it was reporting the total vehicle sale price in revenues at the time of sale. That also explained the bad debt expense: HPPO financed most of its sales and most of those loans went sour.

But why the reversal in 2016?

Aboui explained to the Court that by 2016 he was closing the vehicle business. He would have slowed and eventually stopped selling cars, with the result that he would be depositing more in the bank than he currently sold.

The Court decided that HPPO had correctly recorded its sales for the years at issue.

Next came the cost of vehicles sold.

This accounting was complicated because so much cash was running through the business. Sometimes cash was used to immediately pay expenses without first being deposited into a bank account – NOT a recommended accounting practice.

The RA had also identified certain debits to HPPO’s bank account that were either distributions or otherwise nondeductible.

The Court could find no evidence that those identified debits had been deducted on the tax returns.

The RA – and by extension, the … Treasury – was losing credibility.

Aboui meanwhile provided extensive documentation of HPPO’s expenses at trial. Some of these were records the Court had asked the IRS to accept and review – and which the IRS passed on.

Here is the Court:

Petitioners provided extensive documentation at trial to substantiate the COGS and business expenses. Mr. Aboui testified that HPPO was unprofitable. Given the record in its entirety, we find that petitioners have substantiated HPPO’s COGS and business expenses as reported on HPPO’s returns for each year at issue, except for meal and entertainment expenses of …..”

COMMENT: Strike three.

The Court went to the bad debts.

Mr. Aboui credibly testified that he was unable to repossess approximately 250 cars during the years at issue. The loss of these cars adequately substantiates the amount of HPPO’s bad debt deductions for the years at issue under the Cohan rule.”

The Court went to the distributions.

Respondent determined that petitioners failed to report approximately $7.5 million in taxable distributions from HPPO during the years at issue.”

COMMENT: Remember that HPPO is an S corporation, and Aboui would be able to withdraw his invested capital – plus any business income he had paid taxes on personally but left in the business – without further tax. This amount is Aboui’s “basis” in his S corporation stock.

Here is the Court:

Respondent argues that petitioners have not established Mr. Aboui’s basis in HPPO during the years at issue. We disagree and that the record and Mr. Aboui’s credible testimony provides sufficient evidence for us to reasonably estimate his basis under the Cohan rule.”

The IRS won a partial victory with the distributions. The Court thought Aboui’s basis in HPPO was approximately $5.1 million.

The IRS had wanted zero basis.

The effect was to reduce the excess distributions to $$2.4 million ($7.5 minus $5.1).

Still, it was a rare win for the IRS.

Excess distributions are taxable. Aboui had taxable distributions of $2.4 million. Yes, it is a lot, but it is also a lot less than the IRS wanted.

COMMENT: The nerd part of me wonders how the Court arrived at an estimate of $5.1 million for Aboui’s basis. Unfortunately, there is no further explanation on this point.

Oh, one more thing from the Court:

… we hold that petitioners are not liable for any penalties.”

While not contained within the four corners of this decision, I am curious why the Court repetitively went to the Cohan rule. I have followed this literature for years, and this result is not normal. Courts generally expect a business to maintain an accounting system that produces reliable numbers. Yes, every now and then there may be a leak in the numbers, and the court may use Cohan to plug said leak. That is not what we have here, though. This boat was sinking.

Perhaps Aboui presented his case well.

Mr. Aboui was incredibly forthright in his testimony.”

And perhaps the IRS should not have argued that an RA – an IRS employee – is not the IRS.

Our case this time was Aboui and Mizani v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2024-106.

The Old Three And Two

 

You will recognize the issue.

During 2017 Mary deNourie worked at a retail store. She had wages of $11,516 and social security of $7,559. She and her husband did not file an income tax return because the withholding was enough to cover any tax due.

In 2021 the IRS contacted them about not filing a 2017 tax return. The IRS was preparing a substitute for return showing the wages and social security as well as partnership income of $25,065. When you throw the partnership into the mix, they now owed tax of $4,192, plus interest and penalties.

What partnership income, they exclaimed? The partnership had not paid them anything.

COMMENT: That is not the way partnerships are taxed. For example, a 10% partner will generally be taxable on 10% of the partnership’s taxable income. This amount is reported to a partner on Schedule K-1, a copy of which goes to the IRS. Whether the partner has received cash to go with that K-1 does not matter to the IRS. That is a matter for the partner to take up with the partnership.

I then see a court order in April 2023 releasing the husband from the matter.

That is unusual. What happened?

The IRS had not sent out a Notice of Deficiency – the 90-day letter – to the husband. This is a no-no. The IRS also has rules and procedures, and each spouse (on a joint return) must receive his or her own Notice of Deficiency. Mary received hers. He did not.

Now Mary was on her own.

Coincidentally, the partnership income went away.

COMMENT: It appears the husband owned the partnership.

We are back to Mary’s W-2 and social security.

Mary and the IRS worked on an agreement. There was no tax due for 2017. In fact, there was an overpayment of $284.

Mary wanted the $284.

Can’t blame her.

The IRS said no.

Mary in response refused to sign the agreement.

In March 2024 Mary filed a tax return for 2017. She wanted her refund.

What do you think: will Mary receive that refund?

Here is the relevant law:

Sec. 6511 Limitations on credit or refund

Period of limitation on filing claim. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title in respect of which tax the taxpayer is required to file a return shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the return was filed or 2 years from the time the tax was paid, whichever of such periods expires the later, or if no return was filed by the taxpayer, within 2 years from the time the tax was paid. Claim for credit or refund of an overpayment of any tax imposed by this title which is required to be paid by means of a stamp shall be filed by the taxpayer within 3 years from the time the tax was paid.

Right or wrong, there is a limit on how long you can wait to file for a refund. If you file a return, for example, you have three years to amend for a refund.

There is a riff on the above rule if you file now and pay later. The Code will then permit a refund until 2 years after the tax is paid if that date is after the three-year date.

Notice what this three-and-two have in common:

          You filed a return.

If you do not file a return, the rule gets grimmer:

          You have until 2 years after the tax was paid.

If you file, you start with three and might move to two – and only if two allows for more time.

Don’t file and you have two – period. You have no choice.

Let’s see what Mary did:

·       Mary’s 2017 tax return was due April 15, 2018.

·       She did not file, so the mandatory two-year rule applies.

·       There is still hope, though. If she files within three years – by April 15, 2021 – she can flip the mandatory two back to the normal three-and-two.

o   She filed 2017 in March 2024.

Nope. Too late all around.

Mary had no tax due for 2017, but she likewise had no refund for 2017.

My thought? If you have withholding, consider filing even if there is no tax due. Why? Because withholding represents tax paid, and not filing triggers the mandatory two-year rule. By filing you move to the three-and-two rule. It may save you; it may not, but it provides more breathing room than the alternative.

Today we discussed Mary deNourie v Commissioner, U.S. Tax Court, docket 18182-22.

Tomato Supplier Must Change Accounting Method

 

Let’s talk about when we can deduct something on a tax return.

We are talking about accrual accounting. Cash accounting would be easy: you are not allowed to deduct something until it is paid.

Not surprisingly, there is a Code section for this.

Code § 461 - General rule for taxable year of deduction

            (h) Certain liabilities not incurred before economic performance

(1) In general

 

For purposes of this title, in determining whether an amount has been incurred with respect to any item during any taxable year, the all events test shall not be treated as met any earlier than when economic performance with respect to such item occurs.

We see two key terms: the all-events test and economic performance.

First, a potential deduction must pass the all-events test before it can even think of landing on a tax return.

Second, that potential deduction must next pass a second test – economic performance – before it is allowed as a deduction.

Let’s spend time today on the first hurdle: the all-events test.     

Back to the Code:

            All events test

For purposes of this subsection, the all events test is met with respect to any item if all events have occurred which determine the fact of liability and the amount of such liability can be determined with reasonable accuracy.

There are two prongs there:

·       The fact  

·       The amount  

Much of the literature in this area concerns economic performance, which is the next test after the above two are met. One might presume that the all- events test is a low bar, and that an expense accrued under GAAP for financial reporting purposes would almost automatically meet the all-events test for tax reporting purposes.

You would be surprised how often this is not true, and tax accounting will not give the same answer as financial reporting accounting.

I was reviewing a case this past week. It comes from the Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit, a circuit which includes California.

Morning Star Packing Company and Liberty Packing Company appealed their Tax Court decisions. Both are based in California, and – combined – they supply approximately 40% of the U.S.’s tomato pastes and diced tomatoes. 

Tomato season in California lasts approximately 100 days – from June to September. During this period Morning Star runs its production facilities at maximum capacity 24 hours a day. When the season ends in October, the equipment has been traumatized and needs extensive reconditioning before going into production again. For assorted reasons, Morning Star normally waits near the start of the following season before doing such reconditioning.

Let’s assign dates so we can understand the tax issue.

Say that the frenetic 100-day production activity occurred in 2022.

Morning Star will recondition the equipment before the start of the next production cycle – that is, in 2023.

Reconditioning costs are substantial and can be north of $20 million.

Morning Star deducts the anticipated reconditioning costs to be incurred in 2023 on its 2022 tax return.

What do you think? Can Morning Star clear the all-events test?

Here is the taxpayer:

·       Our customers generally require that the tomato products meet certain quality and sanitary standards. Many customers require independent testing. The facilities are also inspected by the U.S. Department of Agriculture, the Food and Drug Administration and the California Department of Public Health.

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment is strongly implied by the need to meet governmental regulations.

o   Failure to meet such standards could result in the company being required to pay farmers for spoiled tomatoes and/or paying customers for failure to provide tomato products. Any such payments could be catastrophic to the company.

·       The company has credit agreements with several banks. These agreements include numerous covenants such as the following:

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall (i) maintain all material licenses, Permits, governmental approvals, rights, privileges, and franchises reasonably necessary for the conduct of its business ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall … conduct its business activities in compliance with all laws and material contractual obligations applicable ….

o   Each borrower and its respective Subsidiaries shall …keep all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order and condition, ordinary wear and tear excepted….

·       An obligation to refurbish the equipment can be inferred from the “all property useful and necessary in its business in good working order” covenant.

Here is the IRS:

·       The credit agreements do not specifically fix the company’s obligation.

o   The agreements do not specify which laws or regulations must be complied with.

o   The agreements do not specify which property must be kept in good working order.

o   The term “wear and tear” refers to ordinary use; “ordinary” wear and tear is excepted; the agreements therefore do not require the company to refurbish its equipment because it would meet the “ordinary wear and tear” exception.

·       The customer agreements are production specific and do not directly require reconditioning costs. Granted, failure to perform could be financially catastrophic, which implies a high degree of certainty that reconditioning will occur, but a high likelihood is different from a certain obligation.

Both the Tax Court and the Appeals Court agreed with the IRS.

I am divided.

I believe that the IRS is technically correct. There was no explicit obligation, requirement, or guarantee that Morning Star will recondition its facilities before the start of the next season’s production run. I however consider that a false flag. Economic and business reality assures me that it will recondition, because a failure to do so could invite business and financial ruin. Would the USDA or FDA even allow them to start next year’s production run without reconditioning?

Decisions like this unfortunately pull tax practice closer to a wizard’s incantation. The practitioner must be certain to include the magic words, intonating appropriately at proper moments to evoke the intervention of unseen eldritch forces. Fail to include, intone, or evoke correctly and lose the spell – or tax deduction.

Here is Judge Bumatay’s dissent:

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) has a shocking view of taxpayer’s money. According to the IRS’ counsel at oral argument, any disagreement on when a tax payment is due constitutes ‘an interest-free loan from the government' to the taxpayer. That’s completely wrong. Simply, the income of everyday Americans is not government property.”

In fact, Morning Star has used this method since its founding. And the IRS had endorsed this practice – it audited Morning Star in the early 1990s and concluded that this practice was acceptable. But now, after Morning Star’s deductions for years, the IRS changes its mind and demands that Morning Star alter how it recognizes the reconditioning costs.”

Morning Star’s liability was fixed at the end of each season’s production run.”

… the law does not require the taxpayer to prove the fixed obligation to a metaphysical certitude.”

You go, Judge B.

I am not impressed that the IRS previously looked at the accounting method, found it acceptable and now wants to change its mind. That is not the way it works in professional practice, folks. The CPA cannot be reviewing every possible accounting issue de novo every year.

And I am less than impressed that an IRS representative argued that the change was necessary because the government was assuming the risk that the company would not be able to pay its taxes should it encounter a bad harvest or other financial malady.

Seriously? The owners of Morning Star face multiple business dangers every day and the government is “assuming the risk?” We cannot DOGE these people and bureaucracies soon enough.

But then again, Morning Star could have boosted its case with a minor change to its credit agreements. How? Include annual reconditioning as a requirement to retain its credit facility. If Morning Star is going to recondition anyway, making it a requirement might be the magical incantation we need.

Our case this time is Morning Star Packing Company L.P., 9^th Circuit, No. 21-71191.

An Accounting Firm Gets Sued

I just saw that Baker Tilly has acquired Seiler LLP, a CPA firm located in San Francisco and practicing for well over half a century.

There is nothing unusual here. Many older CPAs are looking to retire. In some cases, the firm may have planned for transition and brought in, developed, and retained a pipeline of ownership-interested younger CPAs.  The older CPAs retire, the younger CPAs step up and the firm continues.

In other cases, there is no such pipeline, and the older CPA’s exit plan is a sale to another firm.

The matter caught my eye because a client is suing Seiler for negligence. The matter is still in court. I thought the grounds for negligence was … different.

It is not our usual brew of java, but let’s talk about it.

It starts with a married couple: Eric Freidenrich and Amy Macartney. They hired Seiler to prepare their 2019 joint tax return. The return was filed in December 2020.

COMMENT: You may be thinking that the return was filed late (that is, after October 15) and penalties and interest would be due. That is not true here, as the return showed an overpayment of almost $450 grand. There normally will be no interest and penalties on refund-due returns, as penalties and refunds normally apply only when balances are due the IRS. The risk to a refund return is waiting too long to file a return. Remember, the statute of limitations on filing is three years. Wait past those three years and you will lose your refund.

For some reason, Eric and Amy did not use a home address on their return. They instead used their financial advisor’s address, a practice they had followed for years.

Now, a couple of things happened after 2019 and during 2020 before Seiler filed the return:

·       Eric and Amy divorced.

·       The financial advisor moved.

On first blush, I would be concerned about the divorce. A CPA (or his/her firm) should think long and hard about representing a divorcing couple. The reason is simple: which one of the two is the client? Representing both can create a conflict of interest, and a CPA is supposed to maintain independence and avoid such conflicts. Failure to do so can result in a hearing before a State Board of Accountancy.

The refund arrived in April 2022.

The two had signed their separation agreement in June 2021.

The separation agreement included language that Eric would be responsible for additional taxes due during the term of marriage, but - to be fair - he would also be entitled to any refunds.

Amy did not know that the IRS refund got held up. The couple’s routine was to deposit in the couple’s Fidelity account, and the separation agreement had Amy receiving 60% of the Fidelity account.

The refund was almost $450 grand, and 60% of that – approximately $270 grand – would have gone to Amy.

She was not amused.

I would not be either.

She sued Seiler for negligence.

Notice that she did not sue her ex-husband.

Where is the negligence?

Seiler – as a firm – knew that that advisor had moved. It should have used the new address.

Did the tax team – a subset of Seiler – also know that the advisor had moved? Information moves well enough in a CPA firm, but it would be false to say that it moves flawlessly. It is possible that the tax department did not know, but Amy is suing Seiler, not the tax department.

Seiler (or rather, their attorney) tried to get the motion dismissed.

And there is a quick lesson here about torts. Torts are civil law. Think of torts as suing someone. You bring suit, not the government. It is conduct between private parties.

The idea behind a tort is to restore the injured party (as much as possible in the circumstance) to where he/she would have been had the other party not acted or failed to act. A goal of tort law is to see the world as it could have been, not as the world is now.

Well, under that description Amy would have received 60% of the IRS refund. Seiler injured her. Her ex did not injure her, as he stated in the divorce decree that he would keep any tax refunds relating to the marriage term.

The Court therefore saw reason for tort action and would not grant summary motion for dismissal.

What does this mean? It means that the Court will hear the case against Seiler for negligence.

As a tax CPA, it bothers me that I could get my firm sued for something I did not even know. That said, I get it. The firm knew. However, Eric and Amy saw the address on the return. Their attorneys would also have seen the address. Do we know if the financial advisor timely filed a change of address with the IRS? Seiler might not be the only party with some measure of fault. 

Why Do We Keep Vehicle Logs?

  

November proved to be an interesting month here at Galactic Command. Everything changes; we have changed; there is sadness about the change. We may talk about this someday, but for today let’s keep our discussion to matters of tax.

Here is an easy one, but many get it wrong: can you estimate your auto expenses?

The use of estimates in accounting is prevalent: a bad debt reserve, an inventory write-down, even something as prosaic as depreciation.  It has to be this way, otherwise you could not get financial results out in time to be useful. For example, say you have a warranty program on a newer – and significant – product line. You may want to accrue a warranty reserve on this product line, but the line does not have sufficient track record to be statistically reliable.  I suppose you could skip a reserve altogether (not a good answer) or wait until there is enough history before issuing financials (also not a good answer).

Tax returns also use these numbers. Mind you, a tax return has a separate purpose from financial accounting - the purpose of a tax return being to separate you from your money. Depending upon, the IRS may flat-out tell you what accounting method to use. In most cases, though, tax and financial accounting coexist well enough.

There was a case in the 1930s that many tax advisors have studied: Cohan.

George Cohan was a famous Broadway star, producer and manager in the early part of the 1900s. He was known for his over-the-top entertaining of both fans and critics, and entertainment was a significant part of his business expenses. What George was not good at, though, was keeping receipts and records. He got audited, and the IRS proposed to disallow a raft of deductions because Cohan could not substantiate them. The IRS won before the Tax Board of Appeals (think the predecessor to today’s Tax Court).

Cohan had no intention of rolling over. He appealed.

And he won on his appeal.

The Court reasoned that approximating his expenses may be unsatisfactory, but an outright denial of his expenses was erroneous.

So, the Court estimated what his expenses would be. Mind you, there were some guardrails, such as the proving a right to deduct the expenses and providing some basis for the deduction (restaurant booking registers, for example), such that an independent person could agree that an expense was incurred and when.

This estimating of expenses has since been known as the Cohan rule.

But you know who did not like the rule? Congress. They wrote the following into the tax Code:

Section 274(d)

               (d) Substantiation required

No deduction or credit shall be allowed—

(1) under section 162 or 212 for any traveling expense (including meals and lodging while away from home),

(2) for any expense for gifts, or

(3) with respect to any listed property (as defined in section 280F(d)(4)),

unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement (A) the amount of such expense or other item, (B) the time and place of the travel or the date and description of the gift, (C) the business purpose of the expense or other item, and (D) the business relationship to the taxpayer of the person receiving the benefit. The Secretary may by regulations provide that some or all of the requirements of the preceding sentence shall not apply in the case of an expense which does not exceed an amount prescribed pursuant to such regulations. This subsection shall not apply to any qualified nonpersonal use vehicle (as defined in subsection (i)).

Yes, it reads like gobbledygook but note the phrase “unless the taxpayer substantiates by adequate records or by sufficient evidence corroborating the taxpayer’s own statement.” Congress was saying that – for certain expenses – Cohan would be insufficient to save the day. One of those expenses was “listed property” which normal people refer to as a car or truck.

The Cohan rule will not save you when it comes to car and truck expenses. You have to keep records, such as a log or something similar for the business use of the vehicle.

Lisa Nkonoki deducted $22,936 for vehicle expenses on her 2009 federal tax return. Most of it was for the use of her Mercedes, but there were also rental cars during the year. She did not have a fixed office, meaning that she travelled – a lot.

The IRS wanted that mileage log.

Lisa refused. Off to Court they went.

Now the Court wanted the log.

Lisa told the Court that she had provided the log to the accountant who prepared her return, but the accountant failed to return it to her.

This placed the Court in a tough spot.

Her word alone was insufficient to substantiate the deduction.  The Court knew that her work involved travel – meaning that vehicle expenses were to be expected – but Section 274(d) would not let the Court estimate those expenses.

The Court disallowed her vehicle expenses.

I am curious why Nkonoki did not provide an alternative:

Using her e-mail, telephone and credit card records, could she have recreated an alternate log of her travel, including clients, dates and distances? We think of a log as being created at the moment (“contemporaneous”), but the Courts have noted that is not the correct meaning. Contemporaneous also encompasses other information (think e-mails) created at or near the time the expenses were incurred. Perhaps one transcribes that information into more usable form at a later time (such as a Tax Court hearing), but the information underlying such transcription was created at or near the time – that is, it was contemporaneous.

Our case this time was Nkonoki v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2016-93.

An IRS Employee And Unreported Income

 

You may have heard that Congress is tightening the 1099 reporting requirements for third party payment entities such as PayPal and Venmo. The ultimate goal is to report cumulative payments exceeding $600. Because of implementation issues, the IRS has adjusted this threshold to $5,000 for 2024.

Many, I suspect, will be caught by surprise.

Receiving a 1099-K does not necessarily mean that you have taxable income. It does mean that you were paid by one of the reporting organizations, and that payment will be presumed business-related. This is of concern with Venmo, for example, as a common use is payment of group-incurred personal expenses, such as the cost of dining out. Venmo will request one to identify a transaction as business or personal, using that as the criterion for IRS reporting  

What you cannot do, however, is ignore the matter. This IRS matching is wholly computerized; the notice does not pass by human eyes before being mailed. In fact, the first time the IRS reviews the notice is when you (or your tax preparer) respond to it. Ignore the notice however and you may wind up in Collections, wondering what happened.

The IRS adjusted the 2004 and 2005 returns for Andrea Orellana.

The IRS had spotted unreported income from eBay. Orellana had reported no eBay sales, so the computer match was easy.

There was a problem, though: Orellana worked for the IRS as a revenue officer.

COMMENT: A revenue officer is primarily concerned with Collections. A revenue agent, on the other hand, is the person who audits you.

Someone working at the IRS is expected to know and comply with his/her tax reporting obligations. As a revenue officer, she should have known about 1099-Ks and computer matching.

It started as a criminal tax investigation.

Way to give the benefit of the doubt there, IRS.

There were issues with identifying the cost of the items sold, so the criminal case was closed and a civil case opened in its place.

The agent requested and obtained copies of bank statements and some PayPal records. A best guess analysis indicated that over $36 thousand had been omitted over the two years.

Orellana was having none of this. She requested that the case be forwarded to Appeals.

Orellana hired an attorney. She was advised to document as many expenses as possible. The IRS meanwhile subpoenaed PayPal for relevant records.

Orellana did prepare a summary of expenses. She did not include much in the way of documentation, however.

The agent meanwhile was matching records from PayPal to her bank deposits. This proved an unexpected challenge, as there were numerous duplicates and Orellana had multiple accounts under different names with PayPal.

The agent also needed Orellana’s help with the expenses. She was selling dresses and shoes and makeup and the like. It was difficult to identify which purchases were for personal use and which were for sale on eBay.

Orellana walked out of the meeting with the agent.

COMMENT: I would think this a fireable offense if one works for the IRS.

This placed the agent in a tough spot. Without Orellana’s assistance, the best she could do was assume that all purchases were for personal use.

Off they went to Tax Court.

Orellana introduced a chart of deposits under dispute. She did not try to trace deposits to specific bank accounts nor did she try to explain – with one exception - why certain deposits were nontaxable.

Her chart of expenses was no better. She explained that any documents she used to prepare the chart had been lost.

Orellana maintained that she was not in business and that any eBay activity was akin to a garage sale. No one makes a “profit” from a garage sale, as nothing is sold for more than its purchase price.

The IRS pointed out that many items she bought were marketed as “new." Some still had tags attached.

Orellana explained that she liked to shop. In addition, she had health issues affecting her weight, so she always had stuff to sell.

As for “new”: just a marketing gimmick, she explained.

I always advertise as new only because you can get a better price for that.” 

… I document them as new if it appears new.”

Alright then.

If she can show that there was no profit, then there is no tax due.

Orellana submitted records of purchases from PayPal.

… but they could not be connected or traced to her.

She used a PayPal debit card.

The agent worked with that. She separated charges between those clearly business and those clearly personal. She requested Orellana’s help for those in between. We already know how that turned out.

How about receipts?

She testified that she purchased personal items and never kept receipts.

That would be ridiculous, unheard of. Unless there was some really bizarre reason why I keep a receipt, there were no receipts.”

The IRS spotted her expenses that were clearly business. They were not enough to create a loss. Orellana had unreported income.

And the Court wanted to know why an IRS Revenue Officer would have unreported income.

Frankly, so would I.

Petitioner testified that she ‘had prepared 1040s since she was 16’ and that she ‘would ‘never look at the instructions.’”

Good grief.

The IRS also asked for an accuracy penalty.

The Court agreed.

Our case this time was Orellana v Commissioner, T.C. Summary Opinion 2010-51.