A Divorce Decree And Past Taxes

Let’s say that a couple divorces. The divorce decree stipulates that liability for previous federal taxes will be split 50:50. They had always filed jointly The IRS audits one or more of those earlier years and assesses additional taxes.

Question: what is each spouse’s liability?

Your first thought might be 50:50, as that is what the divorce decree says.

Our protagonists this time would find out.

Mae Asad and Sam Akel filed joint returns for 2008 and 2009. The IRS audited those years, looking at rental losses. They disallowed the losses and assessed over $30,000 in taxes and penalties.

Mae filed for innocent spouse.

Later Sam filed for innocent spouse.

NOTE: Filing for innocent spouse status means that a spouse (probably an ex-spouse, but I had a client who was still married) has been assessed taxes for which he/she does not believe he/she is responsible. The classic case is the stay-at-home spouse, the other self-employed spouse, and the stay-at-home has no participation in or knowledge of the other’s business. Think Carmela Soprano.

The IRS bounced both requests for innocent spouse.

Both ex-spouses filed with the Tax Court.

Before the hearing, the IRS conceded that Mae was responsible for 28% of the 2008 tax and 41% of the 2009 tax. Sam of course was responsible for the balance.

Seems to me that Sam might not like this deal.

I do not know how, but Mae agreed to a 50:50 split. She did not have to, mind you.

The courts have been consistent that a divorce decree is not binding on the IRS, as the IRS is not party to the divorce.  A joint return means that both spouses are liable, and the IRS can go after one … or both, to the extent the IRS desires. The decree may provide for a former spouse to seek restitution against the other, but it has no impact on the IRS.

The Court accepted the IRS previous concession to Mae of 28% and 41%. It did not have to observe the divorce decree and it did not.

Then the Court reviewed the penalties of over $5,000.

But there had been a fatal flaw,

You see, Mae and Sam had filed pro se with the Tax Court. Pro se means one is going in without professional representation (not exactly correct, but close enough). It happens with small tax cases. The paperwork to get to Court and the procedural rules once there are more lenient for small cases.

Sam and Mae had not included the penalty in their petition to the Court.

The Court did not have authority to review the penalties.

But it did provide us a clear example of the downside to representing oneself pro se.

An Engineer Draws A Tax Penalty

We have spoken in the past about clients I would not accept: one with an earned income credit, for example. The tax Code requires me to go all social worker, obtaining and reviewing documents to have reasonable confidence that there is a child and said child lives in given household. There are penalties if I do not.

Not happening.

Did you know that I can be penalized for not signing a tax return as a paid professional? Yep, it is in Section 6694 for the home gamers.

I saw a penalty recently under Section 6701. That one is a rare bird.

The 6701 penalty can reach someone who is not a preparer but who “aids,” “assists” or “advises” with respect to information, knowing that it will be used in a material tax situation.

Here is an example: you gift majority control of your (previously) wholly-owned business to your kids. This would require a valuation, which in turn requires a valuation expert. That expert is probably not preparing the gift tax return, but the preparer of the gift tax return is relying – and heavily – on his/her work.

The penalty is $1,000 for each incident. Pray that you are not advising a corporation, as then it goes to $10,000 per incident.

The IRS recently trotted out Section 6701 in Chief Counsel Advice (CCA) 201805001. Think of a CCA as an IRS attorney advising an IRS employee on what to do.

The situation here involved a “tax-consultant engineer” who analyzed a taxpayer’s assets to determine the classification of property for depreciation purposes.

In the trade, we call this type of work “cost segregation.”

If you have enough money tied-up in certain types of depreciable assets, a “cost seg” may be a very good idea.

What drives the cost seg is an abnormally-long tax life for commercial property: usually 39 years.  It is a tax fiction, divorced from any economic analysis to build or not build or from a bank decision to lend or not lend.

The grail is to “carve out” some of that 39-year property into something that can be depreciated faster. There is room. The parking lot and landscaping, for example, can be depreciated over 15 years. Upgraded wiring to run equipment can be depreciated with the equipment. The additional plumbing at a dentist’s office? Yep, that gets faster depreciation.

But it probably requires a cost seg. Realistically, an accountant can do only so much. A cost seg really needs an engineer.

The engineer in this CCA must have left the plot, as the IRS was nearly out-of-its-mind over his classification into five-year property. The word they used was “egregious.”

Unfortunately, we are not told what he “egregiously” misclassified.

We are however told that he is getting the Section 6701 chop.

What is the math on this penalty?

Well, his misclassification affected five years of individual returns. The penalty would be 5 times $1,000 or $5,000 for each individual client. Hopefully this was a one-off, as $5 grand should be enough to get his attention.

Can you imagine if it had been a corporation? 

Saying Goodbye To Employee Business Expenses

Let’s talk about miscellaneous itemized deductions - likely for the last time.

These are the deductions at the bottom of the form when you itemize, and you probably itemize if you own a house and have a mortgage. Common miscellaneous deductions include investment management fees (if someone, such as Simply Money, manages your savings) and employee business expenses.

These are the “bad” expenses that are deductible only to the extent they exceed 2% of your income (AGI), because … well, because the government wants more of your money.

I am reading a case concerning a bodyguard and his employee business expenses.

His name is Rick Colbert and he retired after 30 years from the Long Beach, California Police Department. He gigged-up with Screen International Security Service Ltd (SISS) in Beverly Hills. They assigned him celebrities. He chauffeured them, deflected paparazzi, installed and monitored security devices, patrolled their estates, performed access point control and responded to distress calls.

SISS had a reimbursement policy. It did not cover everything, but it did cover a lot. Colbert did not seek any reimbursement.

He filed his 2013 tax return and reported SISS income of $25,546.

He then deducted employee business expenses of $23,965.

COMMENT: One can tell he is not in it for the money.

Those numbers are out-of-whack, and the IRS audited him. Like the IRS we know and love, they bounced all of his employee business expenses, arguing that he had not substantiated anything.

On to Tax Court they went.

The Court went through the list of expenses:

(1) $211,154 for a pistol and target practice.

Looks legit, said the Court.

(2) $86 for earbuds

To avoid annoying celebrities.

The Court grinned. OK.

(3) $1,711 for clothing and dry cleaning

Nope said the Court.

We have talked about this before. If you can wear the clothing about town and day-to-day, there is no deduction. It is just another personal expense, unless our protagonist wanted to dress up like “Macho Man" Randy Savage.

(4) $1,609 for a gym membership, weight loss pills and other stuff.

Uhh, no, said the Court, as these are the very definition of “personal, living, or family expenses.”

(5) Office in Home

This would have been nice, be he did not use space “exclusively” for the office, which is a requirement. This would hurt a send time when the Court got to his …

(6) iPad and printer

Computers are like cars when it comes to a tax deduction: you have to keep records to document business use. The reason you never hear about this requirement is because of a significant exception – if you keep the computer in an office you can skip the records requirement.

When Colbert lost his office-in-home, he picked-up a record-keeping requirement. He lost a deduction for his iPad, printer and supplies.

(7) $5,003 for his cellphone

It did not help that his internet and television were buried in the bill.

The Court disallowed his cellphone, which amazes me. Seems to me he could have gone through his bills and highlighted what was business-related.

He won some (primarily his mileage) but lost most.

And his case is now among the last of its kind.

Why?

The new tax bill does away with employee business expenses, beginning in 2018. There is NO DEDUCTION this year.

If you have significant employee business expenses, you really, really need to arrange a reimbursement plan with your employer. Your employer can deduct them, even though you cannot. Why the difference?

Because, to your employer, they are just “business expenses.” 

Honest Attorneys Go Farr

I had forgotten about the conversation.

About a couple of years ago I received a call from a nonclient concerning tax issues for his charity. I normally try to help, at least with general tax issues. I rarely, if ever, help with specific tax advice. That advice is tailored to a given person or situation and should occur in a professional – and compensated – relationship.

Some accountants will not even take the call. I get their point. Tax season, for example, is notorious for nonclient phone calls saying “I just have a quick question.” Sure. Get a Masters degree, practice for 30 years and you will have your answer, Grasshopper.

This phone-call fellow was thinking about drawing payroll from a charity he had founded. It had to do with housing, and he was thinking of contributing additional rental properties he owned personally. However, those rentals provided him some sweet cash flow, and he was looking at ways to retain some of that flow once the properties were in the charity.

Got it. A little benevolence. A little self-interest. Happens all the time.

What about drawing management fees for … you know, managing the properties for the charity.

Someone has to. A charity cannot do so itself because, well, it doesn’t have a body.

Now the hard facts: the charity did not have an independent Board or compensation committee. He was reluctant to form one, as he might not be able to control the outcome. There was no pretense of a comparative compensation or fee study. He arrived at his number because he needed X-amount of money to live on.

Cue the sounds of warning sirens going off.

This is not a likely client for me. I have no problem being aggressive – in fact, I may be more aggressive than the client - but we must agree to play within the lines. Play fudge and smudge and you can find another advisor. We are not making a mutual suicide pact here.

Let’s talk about “excess benefits” and nonprofits.

The concept is simple: the assets of a nonprofit must be used to advance the charitable mission and not for the benefit of organization insiders. If the IRS catches you doing this, there is a 25% penalty. Technically the IRS calls it an “excise tax,” but we know a penalty when we see one. Fail to correct the problem in a timely fashion and the penalty goes to 200%.

That is one of the harshest penalties in the Code.

Generally speaking, an excess benefit requires two things:

(1) Someone in a position to exercise substantial influence over the charity. The term is “disqualified,” and quickly expands to others related to, or companies owned by, such people.

(2) The charity transfers property (probably cash, of course) to a disqualified person without fair value in exchange.

The second one clearly reaches someone who is paid $250,000 for doing nothing but opening the mail, but it would also reach a below-market-interest-rate loan to a disqualified person.

And the second one can become ninja-level sneaky:

When the organization makes a payment to a disqualified for services, it must contemporaneously document its intent to treat such payment as consideration for services. The easiest way to do that is by an employment contract with the issuance of a Form W-2, but there can be other ways.

Fail to do that and it is almost certain that you have an excess benefit, even if the disqualified person is truly working there and even if the payment is reasonable. Think of it as “per se”: it just is.

Yet it happens all the time. How do people get around that “automatic” problem?

There is a safe-harbor in the Code.

(1) An independent Board approves the payment in advance.

(2) Prior to approval, the Board does comparative analysis and finds the amount reasonable, based on independent data.

(3) All the while the Board must document its decision-making process. It could hire an English or History graduate to write everything down, I suppose.

Follow the rules and you can hire a disqualified.

Don’t follow the rules and you are poking the bear. 

I thought my caller did not have a prayer.

Would I look into it, he asked.

Cheeky, I thought.

As I said, I forgot about the call, the caller and the “would I look into it.”

What made me think about this was a recent Tax Court decision. It involves someone who had previously organized the Association for Honest Attorneys (AHA). She had gotten it 501(c)(3) status and continued on as chief executive officer.

From its 990 series I can tell AHA is quite small.

Here is a blip from their website:

However, our C.E.O. has 40+ years experience, education and observation of the legal system, holds a B.S. and M.S. Degree in Administration of Justice from Wichita State University, and has helped take ten cases to the United States Supreme Court.

I do not know what a Masters in Administration of Justice is about, but it sounds like she has chops. She should be able to figure out the ins-and-outs of penalties and excess benefits.

She used the charity’s money for the following from 2010 through 2012:

1. Dillards
2. Walmart
3. A&A Auto Salvage
4. Derby Quick Lube
5. Westar Energy
6. Lowes
7. T&S Tree Service
8. Gene’s Stump Grinding Service
9. an animal clinic
10. St John’s Military School (her son’s tuition)
11. The exhumation and DNA testing of her father’s remains

Alrighty then. 

The Tax Court went through the exercise: she used charity money for personal purposes; she never reported the money as income; there was no pretense of the safe harbor.

She was on the hook for both the 25% and 200% excise tax.

How did she expect to get away with this?

I suspect she was playing the audit lottery. If she was not caught then there was no foul, or so she reasoned. That is more latitude than I have. As a tax professional, I am not permitted to consider the audit lottery when deciding whether to take or not take a tax position.

The case is Farr v Commissioner, T.C. Memo 2018-2 for the home gamers.

Roth IRA Recharacterizations Are Going Away

You may have heard that there has been a tax change in the land of Roth IRAs. It is true, and the change concerns recharacterizations.

And what does that seven-syllable word mean?

Let’s say that you have $50,000 in a traditional (or “Trad”) IRA. “Traditional” means that you got to deduct the money when you put it in. You did so over several years, and you now have – after compounding - $50 grand. Congrats.

You read that this thing is a tax bomb waiting to go off.

How?

Simple. It will be taxable income when you take it out. That is the bargain with the government: they give you the deduction now and you give them the tax later.

You decide to convert your “Trad” into a Roth. That way, you do not pay tax later when you take the money out.

You find out that it is pretty easy to convert, irrespective of what you hear on radio commercials. Let’s say your money is with Vanguard or T Rowe Price. Well, you call Vanguard or T Rowe and explain what you are up to. They will explain that you need a Roth IRA account. You will then have two IRA accounts:

          CTG Reader Traditional IRA, and

          CTG Reader Roth IRA

There is $50 grand in the Traditional IRA account.

You convert.

There is now $50 grand in the Roth IRA and $-0- in the Traditional IRA accounts.

You did it. Good job.

BTW you just created $50 grand of taxable income for yourself.

How? Well, you converted money from an IRA that would be taxable someday to an IRA that will not be taxable someday. The government wants its money someday, and that someday is today.

You didn’t think the government would go away, did you?

Let’s walk this thing forward. Say that we go into next year and your Roth IRA starts tanking. It goes to $47 grand, then $44 grand. The thing is taking on water.

It is time to do your taxes. You and I are talking. We talk about that $50 grand conversion. You tell me about your fund or ETF slipping. I tell you that we are extending your return.

Why?

That is what changed with the new law.

For years you have had until the date you (properly) file your return to “undo” that $50 grand conversion. That is why I want to extend your return: instead of having to decide on April 15, extending lets you wait until October 15 to decide. You have another six months to see what that mutual fund or ETF does. 

Let's say that we wait until October 8^th and the thing has stabilized at $43 grand.

You feel like a chump paying tax on $50 grand when it is only worth $43 grand.

I have you call Vanguard or T Rowe and have them move that money back into CTG Reader Traditional IRA. Mind you, this has to be done by October 15 as the tax extension will run out. We file your return by October 15, and it does NOT show the $50 grand as income.

Why? You unwound the transaction by moving the money back to the Traditional account. Think of it as a mulligan. The nerd term for what we did is “recharacterization.”

It is a nice safety valve to have.

But we will soon have recharacterizations no more. To be accurate, we still have it for 2017 returns but it goes away for later tax years. Your 2017 return can be extended until October 15, 2018, so October 15, 2018 will be extinction day for recharacterizations. It will just be a memory, like income averaging.

BTW there is a variation on the above that will continue to exist, but it is only a distant cousin of what we discussed. Let’s go to your 2018 tax return. In March, 2019 you put $5,500 in a Roth IRA. You will still be able to reverse that $5,500 back to a regular IRA by October 15, 2019 (remember to extend!).

But the difference is that the distant cousin is for one year’s contribution only. You will not be able to take a chunk of money that you have accumulated over years, roll it from a Trad to a Roth and have the option to recharacterize back to a Trad in case the stock market goes wobbly.

Sad in a way.

Patents, Capital Gains and Hogitude

I have an acquaintance who has developed several patents.  He works for a defense contractor, so I suspect he has more opportunity than a tax CPA.

COMMENT: Did you know that tax advisors have tried to “patent” their tax planning? I suppose I could develop a tax shelter that creates partnership basis out of thin air and then pop the shelter to release a gargantuan capital loss to offset a more humongous capital gain…. Wait, that one has already been done. Fortunately, Congress passed legislation in 2011 effectively prohibiting such nonsense.

Let’s say that you develop a patent someday. Let’s also say that you have not signed away your rights as part of your employment package. Someone is now interested in your patent and you have a chance to ride the Money Train. You call to ask how about taxes.

Fair enough. It is not everyday that one talks about patents, even in a CPA firm.

Think of a patent as a rental property. Say you have a duplex. Every month you receive two rental checks. What type of income do you have?

You have rental income, which is to say you have ordinary income. It will run the tax brackets if you have enough income to make the run.

Let’s say you sell the duplex. What type of income do you have?

Let’s set aside depreciation recapture and all that arcana. You will have capital gains.

People prefer capital gains to ordinary income. Capital gains have a lower tax rate.

Patents present the same tax issue as your duplex. Collect on the patent - call it royalties, licensing fees or a peanut butter sandwich – and you have ordinary income. You can collect once or over a period of time; you can collect a fixed amount, a set percentage or on a sliding rate scale. It is all ordinary income.

Or you can sell the patent and have capital gains.

But you have to part with it, same as you have to part with the duplex. 

Intellectual property however is squishier than real estate, which make sense when you consider that IP exists only by force of law. You cannot throw IP onto the bed of a pickup truck.

Congress even passed a Code section just for patents:

§ 1235 Sale or exchange of patents.

(a)  General.

A transfer (other than by gift, inheritance, or devise) of property consisting of all substantial rights to a patent, or an undivided interest therein which includes a part of all such rights, by any holder shall be considered the sale or exchange of a capital asset held for more than 1 year, regardless of whether or not payments in consideration of such transfer are-

(1)  payable periodically over a period generally coterminous with the transferee's use of the patent, or (2) contingent on the productivity, use, or disposition of the property transferred.

The tax Code wants to see you part with “substantial rights,” which basically means the right to use and sell the patent. Limit such use – say by geography, calendar or industry line – and you probably have not parted with all substantial rights.

Bummer.

What if you sell to yourself?

It’s been tried, but good thinking, tax Padawan.

What if you sell to yourself but make it look like you did not?

This has potential. Your training is starting to kick-in.

Time to repeat the standard tax mantra:

pigs get fat; hogs get slaughtered

Do not push the planning to absurd levels, unless you are Google or Apple and have teams of lawyers and accountants chomping on the bit to make the tax literature.

Let’s look at the Cooper case as an example of hogitude.

James Cooper was an engineer with more than 75 patents to his credit. He and his wife formed a company, which in turn entered into a patent commercialization deal with an independent third party.

So far, so good. The Coopers got capital gains.

But the deal went south.

The Coopers got their patents back.

Having been burned, Cooper was now leery of the next deal. Some sharp attorney advised him to set up a company, keep his ownership below 25% and bring in “independent” but trusted partners.

Makes sense.

Mrs. Cooper called her sister to if she wanted to help out. She did. In fact, she had a friend who could also help out.

Neither had any experience with patents, either creating or commercializing them.

Not fatal, methinks.

They both had full-time jobs.

So what, say I.

They signed checks and transferred funds as directed by the accountants and attorneys.

They did not pursue independent ways to monetize the patents, relying almost exclusively on Mr. Cooper.

This is slipping away a bit. There is a concept of “agency” in the tax Code. Do exactly what someone tells you and the Code may consider you to be a proxy for that someone.

Maybe the tax advisors should wrap this up and live to fight another day.

The sister and her friend transferred some of the patents back to Cooper.

Good.

For no money.

Bad.

The sister and her friend owned 76% of the company. They emptied the company of its income-producing assets, receiving nothing in return. Real business owners do not do that. They might have a career in the House of Representatives, though.

Meanwhile, Cooper quickly made a patent deal with someone and cleared six figures.

This mess wound up in Tax Court.

To his credit, Cooper argued that the Court should just look at the paperwork and not ask too many questions. Hopefully he did it with aplomb, and a tin man, scarecrow and cowardly lion by his side.

The Tax Court was having none of his nonsense about substantial rights and 25% and no-calorie donuts.

The Court decided he did not meet the requirements of Section 1235.

The Tax Court also sustained a “substantial understatement” penalty. They clearly were not amused. 

Cooper reached for hogitude. He got nothing.

Mental Illness And The Statute Of Limitations

Many people and most tax practitioners (hopefully) know the statute of limitations on refunds from the IRS:

§ 6511 Limitations on credit or refund.

(a)  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.

We can shorthand this as the “3 and 2” rule.

Then there was the Brockamp case in 1997, which many felt was unfair and which led Congress to write this beauty:

§ 6511 Limitations on credit or refund.

(h)  Running of periods of limitation suspended while taxpayer is unable to manage financial affairs due to disability.

(1)  In general.

In the case of an individual, the running of the periods specified in subsections (a) , (b) , and (c) shall be suspended during any period of such individual's life that such individual is financially disabled.

(2)  Financially disabled.

(A)  In general. For purposes of paragraph (1) , an individual is financially disabled if such individual is unable to manage his financial affairs by reason of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment of the individual which can be expected to result in death or which has lasted or can be expected to last for a continuous period of not less than 12 months. An individual shall not be considered to have such an impairment unless proof of the existence thereof is furnished in such form and manner as the Secretary may require.

Like so much of the tax Code, the heavy lifting is in the details. Brockamp had been senile. Congress addressed the issue by introducing the phrase “medically determinable,” and then handed the baton to the IRS to define what that verbal salad meant.

COMMENT: And there you have a capsule summary of how the Code has gotten away from us over the years. Congress writes words and then leaves it to the IRS and courts to determine what they mean. Congress did the pooch again with the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act.  Google “qualified business income” and tell me that isn’t an elmore waiting to happen.

           

The IRS issued its interpretation of “medically determinable” in Rev Proc 99-21:

SECTION 4. PROCEDURE Unless otherwise provided in IRS forms and instructions, the following statements are to be submitted with a claim for credit or refund of tax to claim financial disability for purposes of § 6511(h).

(1)   a written statement by a physician (as defined in § 1861(r)(1) of the Social Security Act, 42 U.S.C. § 1395x(r)), qualified to make the determination, that …

The IRS is pointing to the Social Security rules to define what a physician is. Methinks this is poor work. Why not reference Beat Bobby Flay to define meal expenses or Car Talk to define transportation expenses?

Let’s look at the Green case.

Richard Green and his wife (Hae Han) went to Tax Court in 2009. There were taxes due and tax refunds and quite the debate about offsetting one against the other.  The case eventually got to Sec 6511(h), and here is what the Court had to say about it:

An individual will not, however, be considered financially disabled unless proof of a medically determinable physical or mental impairment is provided in such form and manner as the Commissioner may require. More specifically, the Commissioner requires a written statement from a physician. Ms. Han, however, did not establish that she was financially disabled. In addition, she was treated by a clinical psychologist, not a physician, and thus could not and did not provide the requisite documentation.

Ms. Han’s letter was written by a psychologist. 

COMMENT: I am thinking: why is a psychologist not considered a “physician?” An optometrist is considered one for this purpose, although an optometrist has an O.D. and not an M.D.

There was no relief for Green and Han.

A number of practitioners considered this decision to be nonsense. The IRS had grafted a Medicare definition concerning payment for services onto Sec 6511(h), which was supposed to be a relief provision in the tax Code.

Enter the Estate of Stauffer, which is presently in Court.

Carlton Stauffer died in 2012 at the age of 90. His son is administering the estate. He discovered that his dad had not filed tax returns for 2006 through 2012. He filed those returns on behalf of his dad. One year alone – 2006 – had a refund of approximately $137,000.

The IRS denied the refund as outside the 3-year window.

The son appealed and pointed at Sec 6511(h).

His father had been seeing a psychologist, who treated him from 2001 until his death in 2012. The psychologist wrote a persuasive letter explaining how Carlton had suffered from psychological problems in addition to ailments including congestive heart failure, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, leukemia, and chronic pneumonia. He explained how all these factors negatively impacted Carlton’s mental capacity, cognitive functioning, decision making and prevented him from successfully managing his affairs.

The IRS said: show us the “M.D.”

Why wouldn’t they? They had won with that play before.

The estate sued in District Court.

The IRS motioned to dismiss, order boneless chicken wings and watch the NBA over a pitcher of beer.

The District Court denied the IRS motion.

The Court pointed out that – for all the IRS’ power – that it could still review Rev Proc 99-21 under the “arbitrary and capricious” standard that government agencies are held to. The IRS had to articulate a rational connection for its standard, as well as explain why it rejected any reasonably obvious alternatives to the challenged rule.

The Court pointed out that Social Security does not restrict the types of professionals who may opine on whether someone has a disability qualifying for disability benefits. In fact, the opinion of a psychologist is given great weight in such a determination.

The Court did not see how the IRS dismissal of a psychologist’s letter passed the “arbitrary and capricious” standard.

Mind you, the Estate of Stauffer won a motion only; this does not mean that it will win the overall case.  

I for one hope it does.