A Psychiatrist, Chauffer, Physician, Peace Officer, Pheasant Hunter

 

He said that his patients often called him a psychiatrist, chauffer, physician, peace officer, or even a pheasant hunter.”

He is David Laudon, a chiropractor in Minnesota and the subject of one of the more entertaining Tax Court opinions of the last decade. Laudon, however, reached too far for too long, and he was about to learn about snapback.

Back to the Court:

But not a ghostbuster. The Commissioner rhetorically asserted that some of Laudon’s trips might have made more sense if he was claiming to be a ghostbuster. Laudon then disclaimed any employment as a ghostbuster. In his reply brief the Commissioner conceded that Laudon was not ‘employed or under contract to perform work as a ghostbuster during the tax years at issue in this case.’”

Methinks Laudon missed the joke.

How did Laudon get to court?

Easy: he was audited for years 2007 through 2009.

His records were … colorful, humorous, inadequate.

Laudon did not keep records of his income in any decipherable form.”

The IRS did a reconstruction of his business income by analyzing his bank accounts. The rule of thumb is straightforward: all deposits are income unless one can prove otherwise. A common otherwise is when a taxpayer transfers money between accounts.

Laudon contends that the Commissioner failed to classify certain deposits as nontaxable, including insurance payments for damage to several vehicles, one of which was involved in a ‘high speed police chase’ with a man ‘high on meth and cocaine.’”

There is something you do not see every day. The other thing the Court did not see was “any evidence” that the deposits were what and as Laudon described.

We therefore accept the Commissioner’s reconstruction of income.”

On to deductions.

He treats some of his patients in his home and claims to use roughly half of his house – the basement and half of the garage – for business.”

This could be a problem. Rember that an office in home deduction requires exclusive business use of the space. He claimed a lot of space, ratcheting the pressure on “exclusive.”

Like many chiropractic offices, Laudon’s has beds, tables, and a waiting area. But unlike most, his also comes equipped with a Wii, Xbox 360, big-screen TVs and, for a time, a working hair salon.”

Hair salon? What kind of chiropractic office is this?

I see that Laudon represented himself at Tax Court. I would also guess that he represented himself during the audit. Why do I say that?

We particularly disbelieve his claim that the Xbox, Wii, big-screen TVs and other electronics in his basement were used exclusively for chiropractic purposes since this claim conflicts with his much more plausible admission to the IRS examiner during audit that his daughter and his girlfriend’s son would play these video games while he was on the phone.”

There is an example of why I almost never have a client meet or speak directly with the IRS – I cannot control the exchange.

Laudon was deducting between 40,000 and 60,000 miles per year for business purposes.

.. for example, driving to a ‘schizophrenic’ patient who was – on more than one occasion – ‘running scared of demons’ down a rural Minnesota highway .…”

That last part should be incorporated into a folk or country song. I can almost hear the melody.

Laudon apparently had a penchant for adult beverages.

Laudon claimed to have driven hundreds of miles per day – sometimes without a valid license ….”

I’ll bite. What happened to his license?

Even his testimony about multiple entries in the logs where he wrote “DUI” was not credible: He claimed that these were not references to being stopped by the police while under the influence, or driving while his license was suspended .…”

Then what were they?

They “instead were his misspellings of a patient named: 'Dewey' - a supposed patient of his.'"

This is starting to read like a sit com script. I am waiting for the reference to tiger blood.

But he had a mileage log, right? Did that count for anything?

Laudon had a mileage log, but it fails to meet section 274(d)’s standards. The … entry, for example, describes his purpose as ‘travel to and from places.’”

Zen-like. Nice.

The Court also looked at other expenses, including “Other Expenses” for the three years under audit.

Most of this amount - $22,665 – was a deduction for the value of Laudon’s labor, supplies and stolen goods ….”

Wait on it.

… related to the renovation of a home that Laudon neither lived nor worked in, or even owned.”

It fits. Well done, sir.

Laudon was getting clipped on almost every deduction.

But wait.

You know the IRS wanted penalties.

Laudon asserts the defense that he reasonably relied on the advice of a tax professional.”

Yep, that is a defense, but you must use a tax professional, provide all information – good or bad – to the professional and actually rely on the professional.

Moreover, while he claimed to have brought all of his receipts to H&R Block along with his summaries, he later stated that his preparers didn’t want him to just walk in with his receipts and have them add it up ….”

Folks, accountants do not add up grocery bags of receipts. Considering that the profession usually bills based on work time, I doubt you want to pay someone for adding up your receipts.

The Court was direct:

We don’t need to address the …. because we don’t believe that Laudon provided ‘necessary and accurate information’ to his advisor.”

At this point, the Court did not believe anything Laudon was saying.

Having blinded H&R Block to the details and peculiarities of his chiropractic enterprise, Laudon cannot now claim that he relied on H&R Block’s advice. We sustain the penalty.”

Our case this time was David William Laudon v Commissioner. T.C. Summary Opinion 2015-54.

If you read only one, make it this one.

Blowing An Estate Tax Deduction

 

Let’s talk about the Estate of Martin W. Griffin.

Martin Griffin (Martin) was married to Maria Creel.

Martin created a revocable trust known as the Martin W. Griffin Trust.

COMMENT: A revocable trust means that the settlor (Martin in this case) can undo the trust. When that happens, the trust is disregarded and Martin and his revocable trust are considered the same person for tax purposes. The classic revocable trust is a “living trust,” which has no effect until one dies. Its purpose is not tax-driven at all and is instead to avoid probate.

Martin next created the MCC Irrevocable Trust.

COMMENT: Irrevocable means that Martin cannot undo the trust. He might be able to tweak a thing or two at the edges, but he cannot do away with the trust itself.

The Irrevocable Trust had the following language in the trust agreement:

The trust shall distribute the sum of Two Million Dollars ($2,000,000) to the trustee then serving …. for the benefit of Maria C. Creel. From this bequest, the trustee … shall pay to Maria C. Creel a monthly distribution, as determined by Maria and Trustee to be a reasonable amount, not to exceed $9,000 ….”

You see the word “Estate” in the case name. The issue in this case is estate tax, and it involves passing assets at death to one’s surviving spouse. There are two general ways to do this:

·       You simply transfer the asset to the surviving spouse.

An example here is a principal residence. The deed is in both spouse’s names. When you die, the house transfers directly to her (I am assuming you are the husband). She can then do what she wants: she can keep the house, sell the house, rent it or whatever. She has unfettered control over the house.

·       You transfer a right – but not all the rights – to the asset.

Let’s stay with the above example. You instead transfer a life estate to your wife. Upon her death the house goes to your children from your first marriage. She no longer has unfettered control over the asset. She cannot sell the house, for example. She has some – but not all – incidents of ownership.

The reason this is important is that the estate tax will allow you to deduct category (1) assets from your taxable estate, but category (2) assets have to go through an additional hoop to get there.

Here is the relevant Code section:

26 U.S. Code § 2056 - Bequests, etc., to surviving spouse

(7) Election with respect to life estate for surviving spouse  

(A) In general In the case of qualified terminable interest property—  

(i) for purposes of subsection (a), such property shall be treated as passing to the surviving spouse, and

(ii) for purposes of paragraph (1)(A), no part of such property shall be treated as passing to any person other than the surviving spouse.  

(B) Qualified terminable interest property defined For purposes of this paragraph—  

(i)In general The term “qualified terminable interest property” means property—

(I) which passes from the decedent,

(II) in which the surviving spouse has a qualifying income interest for life, and

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

Section 2056 addresses the hoops we are talking about. If you are transferring less than total and unfettered rights to an asset, you want to make sure that you are transferring enough to qualify the asset as “qualified terminable interest property.” If you do, you get a subtraction for estate tax purposes. If you do not, there is no subtraction. 

It takes a lot to get to an estate tax in 2025 (given the lifetime exemption), but – if you do – the rate ramps to 40% rather quickly.  

Back to Martin.  

The Irrevocable Trust transferred enough to qualify as qualified terminable interest property.

Here is the Court:

The $2 million bequest is not QTIP. It is terminable interest property that does not qualify for the marital deduction and is includible in the estate.”

Huh? What happened?

Go back to (B)(iii) above:

(III) to which an election under this paragraph applies.

How do you make the election?

You include the asset on Schedule M of Form 706 (that is, the estate tax return):

That’s it. It is not complicated, but it must be done. The Code requires it.

Someone missed this while preparing Martin W Griffin’s estate tax return.

Yep, I expect a malpractice suit.

Loan Warehousing And The Claim of Right

 

Tax returns are generally filed in one-year increments.

That raises an accounting question: what if the transaction being accounted for stretches over more than one year?

A variation is:

Set aside whether the whether the transaction resolved in the same period. Was there doubt as to a material fact affecting the transaction? If one were to redo the accounting knowing what one knows now, would there be a different answer?

This is the backdrop for the claim of right doctrine. Judge Brandeis referred to it in North American Oil Consolidated v Burnet (1932):

If a taxpayer receives earnings under a claim of right and without restriction as to its disposition, he has received income which he is required to return, even though it may still be claimed that he is not entitled to retain the money, and even though he may still be adjudged liable to restore its equivalent.”

You can immediately see a couple of requirements:

(1) The taxpayer is later required to return the money.

(2) The taxpayer, however, initially received the money without restriction upon its use.

If you are preparing a tax return and learn of the above, what do you do?

(1)  Amend the original tax return?

(2)  Deduct the repayment in the year of repayment?

It might not seem significant upon first hearing, but it can be. Here are two common ways it can be significant:

(1) The original year (that is, the year the income was reported) is closed under the statute of limitations.

(2) Tax rates have changed substantially between the years.

Congress finally passed a Code section codifying the claim of right doctrine in 1954:

26 U.S. Code § 1341 - Computation of tax where taxpayer restores substantial amount held under claim of right

(a) General rule If—

(1) an item was included in gross income for a prior taxable year (or years) because it appeared that the taxpayer had an unrestricted right to such item;

(2) a deduction is allowable for the taxable year because it was established after the close of such prior taxable year (or years) that the taxpayer did not have an unrestricted right to such item or to a portion of such item; and

(3) the amount of such deduction exceeds $3,000,

then the tax imposed by this chapter for the taxable year shall be the lesser of the following:

(4) the tax for the taxable year computed with such deduction; or

(5) an amount equal to—

(A) the tax for the taxable year computed without such deduction, minus

(B) the decrease in tax under this chapter (or the corresponding provisions of prior revenue laws) for the prior taxable year (or years) which would result solely from the exclusion of such item (or portion thereof) from gross income for such prior taxable year (or years).

This is a rare find in the tax Code, as Congress actually expanded the claim of right to make it more taxpayer friendly. The Code still allows a deduction in the year of repayment, but it also allows a recalculation using the original year’s tax rates. If tax rates have decreased (overall or yours personally), the recalculation of the original year may be the better way to go.

Let’s look at Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner.

Here is the first sentence of the decision:

P overreported more than $7 million in income on its 2007 through 2013 federal income tax returns."

Big number. It caught my attention.

Norwich was a residential mortgage loan originator. It engaged in warehouse lending, a term that may sound mysterious but is really not. Here is what warehousing means in a lending context: 

• Norwich (call it the warehouse) borrows money, likely on a line of credit, to start the transaction. 
• The warehouse lends the money to a customer (in this case, a home buyer) in exchange for a promissory note. 
• The warehouse sells the promissory note to an investor. The money received from the sale is (almost certainly) deposited with the lender the warehouse itself borrowed the money from. 
• The lender does its calculations: how much is owed, how much interest is due and other charges, if any. It subtracts this amount from the amount deposited. Whatever is leftover is returned to the warehouse as gross profit (in this context called: mortgage fee income).

If you think about it, this is an inventory accounting of sorts, except that the inventory is money lent.

So, Norwich was a warehouse.

Liberty was Norwich’s primary lender. There were others, but let’s sidestep as they are not necessary to understand the tax issue at play.

Norwich had to design an accounting procedure for its mortgage fee income. It did the following: 

• First, all mortgage deposits were posted to Mortgage Fee Income.
• Second, the amounts kept by Liberty reduced Mortgage Fee Income.
• Third, Norwich would adjust Mortgage Fee Income to whatever Liberty said it was.
• Fourth, the difference was assumed to be Unsold Mortgages.

I get it, but Norwich should backstop its critical accounts.

Let’s see:

(1)  Cash

a.     Well, that is easy to backstop with a bank statement.

(2)  Loan payable to Liberty.

a.     Again: easy. Liberty should be able to tell them that number.

(3)  Unsold Mortgages.

a.     Liberty cannot help Norwich here, as these have not entered Liberty’s accounting system. They are off the radar as far as Liberty is concerned.

We have identified the weak spot in the accounting, as Unsold Mortgages are just a subtraction. Best practice would involve keeping detail – more or less, as required – to have a reality check on the running balance.

In 2014 Norwich started using new accounting software.

It could not reconcile certain accounts.

COMMENT: This is my shocked face.

Norwich contacted Liberty, who in turn provided detail and balances to help with reconciliations. One of those numbers was collateral held by Liberty to secure the line of credit. The collateral included everything, including loans in process or otherwise but not yet sold by Norwich.

If that sounds a lot like Norwich’s Unsold Mortgages account, that is because it is.

Liberty’s number was significantly less than Norwich’s – by over $7 million. Mind you, all this stuff was collateral for the line of credit. If the actual Unsold Mortgages balance was substantially less than previously reported, Norwich might be undercollateralized. The term for this is “out of trust,” and it could also cause problems for Liberty on the regulator side.

BTW Liberty did not initially believe that Norwich was correct or that the situation was urgent. Norwich tried repeatedly to schedule meetings with Liberty. Liberty in turn delayed, expecting nothing to be amiss.

We will fast forward through the banking side of this.

Norwich filed its claim of right refund – for $7.5 million – on its 2014 tax return.

The IRS denied the refund entirely.

You know this went to Court.

And the arguments are easy to predict:

Norwich: We had an unrestricted right to that income in prior years. It was not until 2014 that we discovered otherwise. Under claim of right, 2014 is the proper year for the deduction.

IRS: Everything here is a loan. Norwich issued loans. Norwich borrowed on loans. When originated loans were sold, Norwich in turn paid back its loans. Everything that happened here circles around loans of one type or another. The claim of right has nothing to do with loans.

Both sides had a point.

Here is the Court:

This, the Commissioner focuses on the origin of the funds rather than the origin of the transaction ….”

I agree. The business activity required extensive use of loans, but the intended result of all the loans was to generate a profit, not to maintain a loan into perpetuity.

The Court noted that everybody - including Liberty - thought that Norwich was entitled to the money when Norwich received it.

The repayment was also deductible as an ordinary and necessary business expense and was not barred by another Code section.

2014 was also the correct year for the deduction. It was the year Norwich found the error, which discovery was memorialized in paperwork between Norwich and Liberty. Norwich agreed to either (1) provide more collateral or (2) pay down its line of credit with Liberty.

The Court did tweak some numbers, but overall Norwich prevailed in its claim of right refund request.

Our case this time was Norwich Commercial Group v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-43.

Recurring Proposal For Estate Beneficiary’s Basis In An Asset

There is an ongoing proposal in estate taxation to require the use of carryover basis by an inheriting beneficiary.

I am not a fan.

There is no need to go into the grand cosmology of the proposal. My retort is simple: it will fail often enough to be an unviable substitute for the current system.

You might be surprised how difficult it can be sometimes to obtain routine tax reports. I have backed into a social security 1099 more times than I care to count.

And that 1099 is at best a few months old.

Let’s talk stocks.

Question: what should you do if you do not know your basis in a stock?

In the old days – when tax CPAs used to carve numbers into rock with a chisel – the rule of thumb was to use 50% of selling price as cost. There was some elegance to it: you and the IRS shared equally in any gain.

This issue lost much of its steam when Congress required brokers to track stock basis for their customers in 2011. Mutual funds came under the same rule the following year.

There is still some steam, though. One client comes immediately to mind.

How did it happen?

Easy: someone gifted him stock years ago.

So?  Find out when the stock was gifted and do a historical price search.

The family member who gifted the stock is deceased.

So? Does your client remember - approximately - when the gift happened?

When he was a boy.

All right, already. How much difference can it make?

The stock was Apple.

Then you have the following vapid observation:

Someone should have provided him with that information years ago.

The planet is crammed with should haves. Take a number and sit down, pal.

Do you know the default IRS position when you cannot prove your basis in a stock?

The IRS assumes zero basis. Your proceeds are 100% gain.

I can see the IRS position (it is not their responsibility to track your cost or basis), but that number is no better than the 50% many of us learned when we entered the profession.

You have something similar with real estate.

 Let’s look at the Smith case.

Sherman Darrell Smith (Smith) recently went before the Tax Court on a pro se basis.

COMMENT: We have spoken of pro se many times. It is commonly described as going to Tax Court without an attorney, but that is incorrect. It means going to Tax Court represented by someone not recognized to practice before the Tax Court. How does one become recognized? By passing an exam. Why would someone not take the exam? Perhaps Tax Court is but a fragment of their practice and the effort and cost to be expended thereon is inordinate for the benefits to be received. The practitioner can still represent you, but you would nonetheless be considered pro se.

Smith’s brother bought real property in 2002. There appears to have been a mortgage. His brother may or may not have lived there.

Apparently, this family follows an oral history tradition.

In 2011 Smith took over the mortgage.

The brother may or may not have continued to live there.

Several years later Smith’s brother conveyed an ownership interest to Smith.

The brother transferred a tenancy in common.

So?

A tenancy in common is when two or more people own a single property.

Thanks, Mr. Obvious. Again: so?

Ownership does not need to be equal.

Explain, Mr. O.

One cannot assume that the real estate was owned 50:50. It probably was but saying that there was a tenancy in common does not automatically mean the brothers owned the property equally.

Shouldn’t there be something in writing about this?

You now see the problem with an oral history tradition.

Can this get any worse?

Puhleeeze.

The property was first rented in 2017.

COMMENT: I suspect every accountant that has been through at least one tax course has heard the following:

The basis for depreciation when an asset is placed in service (meaning used for business or at least in a for-profit activity) is the lower of the property’s adjusted basis or fair market value at the time of conversion.

One could go on Zillow or similar websites and obtain an estimate of what the property is worth. One would compare that to basis and use the lower number for purposes of depreciation.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner used real estate valuation sources available in 2024 to estimate the rental property’s fair market value at the time of conversion.”

Sounds like the Court did not like Smith researching Zillow in 2024 for a number from 2017. Smith should have done this in 2017.

If only he had used someone who prepares taxes routinely: an accountant, maybe.

Let’s continue:

But even if we were to accept his estimate …, his claim to the deduction would fail because of the lack of proof on the rental property’s basis.”

The tenancy in common kneecapped the basis issue.

Zillow from 2024 kneecapped the fair market value issue.

Here is the Court:

Petitioner has failed to establish that the depreciation deduction here in dispute was calculated by taking into account the lesser of (1) the rental property’s fair market value or (2) his basis in the rental property.”

And …

That being so, he is not entitled to the depreciation deduction shown on his untimely 2018 federal tax return.”

Again, we can agree that zero is inarguably wrong.

But such is tax law.

And yes, the Court mentioned that Smith failed to timely file his 2018 tax return, which is how this mess started.

Here is the Court:

Given the many items agreed to between the parties, we suspect that if the return had been timely filed, then this case would not have materialized.”

Let’s go back to my diatribe.

How many years from purchase to Tax Court?

Fifteen years.

Let’s return to the estate tax proposal.

Allow for:

• Years if not decades
• Deaths of relevant parties
• Failure to create or maintain records, either by the parties in interest or by municipalities tasked with such matters
• Soap opera fact patterns

And there is why I object to cost carryover to a beneficiary.

Because I have to work with this. My classroom days are over.

And because – sooner or later – the IRS will bring this number back to zero. You know they will. It is chiseled in stone.

And that zero is zero improvement over the system we have now.

Our case this time was Smith v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2025-24.