Can You Have Reasonable Cause For Filing Late?

I am looking a reasonable cause case.

For the non-tax-nerds, the IRS can abate penalties for reasonable cause. The concept makes sense: real life is not a tidy classroom exercise. If you have followed me for a while, you know I strongly believe that the IRS has become unreasonable with allowing reasonable cause. I have had this very conversation with multiple IRS representatives, many of whom agree with me.

I am looking at one where the penalty was $450,959.

To put that in perspective, a January 29, 2019 MarketWatch article stated that the median 65-year-old American’s net worth is approximately $224,000.

Surely the IRS would not be assessing a penalty of that size without good reason – right?

Let’s go through the case.

Someone died. That someone was Agnes Skeba, and she passed away on June 10, 2013.

Agnes had an estate of approximately $14 million, the bulk of which was land (including farmland) and farm machinery. What the estate did not have was a lot of cash.

On March 6, 2014 the attorney sent an extension form and payment of $725,000 to the IRS.         

COMMENT: An estate return is due within 9 months of death, if the estate is large enough to require a return. Seems within 9 months to me.

The attorney included the following letter with the payment:

Our office is representing Stanley L. Skeba, Jr. as the Executor of the Estate of Agnes Skeba. Enclosed herewith is a completed “Form 4768 — Application for Extension of Time to File a Return and/or Pay U.S. Estate Taxes” along with estimated payment in the amount of $725,000 made payable to “The United States Treasury” for the above referenced Estate Tax.

Additionally, we are requesting a six (6) month extension of time to make full payment of the amount due. Despite the best efforts of this office and the Executor, the Estate had limited liquid assets at the time of the decedent’s death. Accordingly, we have been working to secure a mortgage on a substantial commercial property owned by the Estate in order to make timely payment of the balance of the Estate Tax anticipated to be due.

Currently, we have liquid assets in the amount of $1.475 million and the estimated value of the total estate is $14.7 million. Accordingly, we have submitted payments in the amount of $575,000 to the State of New Jersey, Division of Revenue, for State estate taxes payable and in the amount of $250,000 to the Pennsylvania Department of Revenue for State inheritance taxes payable. We are hereby submitting the balance of available funds to you, in the amount of $725,000, as partial payment of the expected U.S. Estate Taxes for the Estate.

We are in the process of securing a mortgage, which was supposed to close prior to the taxes being due, in the amount of $3.5 million that would have permitted us to make full payment of the taxes timely. Due to circumstances previously unknown and unavoidable by the Executor, the lender has not been able to comply with the closing deadline of March 7, 2014. It is anticipated that the lender will be clear to close within fourteen (14) days and then we will remit the balance of the estimated U.S. Estate Taxes payable.

Additionally, there has been delays in securing all of the necessary valuations and appraisals due to administrative delays caused by contested estate litigation currently pending in Middlesex County, New Jersey.

I would say he did a great job.

But the estate did not pay-in all of its estimated tax ….

A few days later the estate was able to refinance. The estate made a second payment of $2,745,000 on March 18, 2014. This brought total taxes paid the IRS to $3,470,000.

COMMENT: Mrs. Skeba died on June 10^th. Add 9 months and we get to March 10^th. OK, the second payment was a smidgeon late.

Now life intervened. It took a while to get the properties appraised. The executor had health issues severe enough to postpone the court proceedings several times. The estate’s attorney was diagnosed with cancer, delaying the case. Eventually the law firm replaced him as lead attorney altogether, which caused further delay.

As we said: life.

The estate asked for an extension for the federal estate tax return. The filing date was pushed out to September 10, 2014.

The estate was finally filed on or around June 30, 2015.

          COMMENT: Nine-plus months later.

The tax came in at $2,528,838, with estimated taxes of $3,470,000 paid-in. The estate had a refund of $941,162.

Until the IRS slapped a $450,959 penalty.

Huh?

The IRS calculated the penalty as follows: 

$2,528,838 – 725,000 = 1,803,838 times 25% = $450,959

The reason? Late filing said the IRS.

On first pass, it seems to me that the worst the IRS could do is assess penalties for 8 days (from March 10 to March 18). Generally speaking, penalties are calculated on tax due, meaning the IRS has to spot taxes you already paid-in.

In addition, need we mention that the estate was OVERPAID?

The attorney asked for abatement. Here is part of the request:

Beyond September 10, 2014, the Estate continued to have delays in filing due to the pending and anticipated completion of the litigation over the validity of the decedent’s Will, which would impact the Estate’s ability to complete the filing and the executor’s capacity to proceed. Initially, it, was anticipated that the trial of this matter would be heard before Judge Frank M. Ciuffani in the Superior Court of New Jersey in Middlesex County, Chancery Division-Probate Part in July of 2014. Due to health concerns on behalf of the Plaintiff, Joseph M. Skeba, the Judge delayed these proceedings multiple times through the end of 2014, each time giving us a new anticipation of the completion of the trial to permit the estate tax return to be filed. Upon the Plaintiffs improved health, the Judge finally scheduled a trial for July 7, 2015, which was expected to allow our completion in filing the return.

           

Accordingly, this litigation, which was causing us reason to delay in the filing, gave rise to the estate’s inability to file the return.

Finally, in May of 2015 we were notified of the Estate’s litigation attorney, Thomas Walsh of the law firm of Hoagland Longo Moran Dunst & Doukas, LLP, that he was diagnosed with cancer that would possibly cause him to delay this matter from proceeding as scheduled. In early June, we were notified by Mr. Walsh’s office that his prognosis had worsened and he would be prevented from further handling the litigation of this matter, so new counsel within his firm would be assisting in carrying this matter through trial. Due to the change in counsel, it was deemed that the anticipated trial was no longer predictable in scheduling, so the Estate chose to file the return as it stood at such time.

Displaying the compassion and goodwill toward man of deceased General Soleimani, on or around November 5, 2015 the IRS responded to the attorney’s letter and stated that the reasons in the letter did not “establish reasonable cause or show due diligence.”

Shheeeessshh.

The accountant got involved next. He included an additional reason for penalty abatement:

I do not believe the IRS had knowledge of the extension in place at the time the penalty was assessed, nor did they have a record of the additional payment of $2,745,000. The IRS listed the unpaid tax as $1,803,838 and charged the maximum 25% to arrive at the penalty of $450,959.50. The estate not only paid the entire tax the estate owed by the due date to pay but also had an overpayment. Section 6651(b) bars a penalty for late filing when estimated taxes are paid.

           

The IRS did not respond to the accountant.

The accountant tried again.

Here is the Court:

                To date, IRS Appeals has not responded to either letter.

I know the feeling, brother.

You know this is going to Court. It has to.

The estate’s argument was two-fold:

1.  The estate was fully paid-in. In fact, it was more than fully paid-in.
2.  There was reasonable cause: an illiquid estate, health issues with the executor, issues with obtaining appraisals, an estate attorney diagnosed with cancer, on and on.

The IRS came in with hyper-technical wordsmithing.

Based on § 6151, the Government cleverly reasons that the last day for payment was nine months after the death of Agnes Skeba—March 10, 2014; because no return was filed by that date a penalty may be assessed. Applying the rationale to the facts, the Government contends only $750,000 was paid on or before March 10, 2014, when $2,528,838 was due on that date. Referring back to § 6651(a)(1), a 25% penalty on the difference may therefore be assessed because it was not paid by March 10, 2014. As such, the full payment of the estate tax on March 18, 2014 is of no avail because the “last date fixed” was March 10, 2014. Accordingly, the Government argues that the imposition of a penalty in the amount of $450,959.00 is appropriate.

The Court brought out its razor:

The Government puts forth a valid point that there is an administrative need to complete and close tax matters. Here, the Estate had nine months to file the return, the extension added six months, and Defendant unilaterally added another nine months to file the return. Although there was the timely payment of the estate taxes, the matter, in the Government’s view, lingered and the administrative objective to timely close the file was not met. See generally Boyle, 469 U.S. at 251. There may be a need for some other penalty for failure to timely file a return, but Congress must enact same.

Slam on the wordsmithing.

COMMENT: Boyle is the club the IRS trots out every time there is a penalty and a late return. The premise behind Boyle is that even an idiot can Google when a return is due. The IRS repetitively denies penalty abatement requests – with a straight face, mind you – snorting that there is no reasonable cause for failure to rise to the level of a common idiot.

That said: did the estate have reasonable cause?

Finally, another issue in this case is whether Plaintiff demonstrated reasonable cause and not willful neglect in allegedly failing to timely file its estate tax return. Although the Court has already determined that the penalty at issue was not properly imposed pursuant to the Government’s flawed statutory rationale, it will review this issue for completeness.

In the tax world, folks, that is drawing blood.

In this case, Mr. White submitted his August 17, 2015 letter explaining the rationale for not filing. (See supra at pp. 5-6). For example, in Mr. White’s letter, he indicated that certain estate litigation was delayed due to health conditions suffered by the executor. (Id.). Additionally, Mr. White refers to the Hoagland law firm and one of the attorneys assigned to the case as having been diagnosed with cancer. (Id.). The Hoagland firm is a very prestigious and professional firm and based on same, Mr. White’s letter shows a reasonable cause for delay.

In addition, Mr. White’s prior letter of March 6, 2014 notes that there was difficulty in “securing all of the necessary valuations and appraisals. . . caused by the contested litigation.” (Hayes Cert., Ex. C). Drawing from my professional experience, such appraisals often require months to prepare because a farm located in Monroe, New Jersey will often sit in residential, retail, and manufacturing zones. To appraise such a farm requires extensive knowledge of zoning considerations. Thus, this also constitutes a reasonable cause for delay.

I hope this represents some whittling away of the Boyle case. That said, I wonder whether the IRS will appeal – so it can protect that Boyle case.

I would say the Court had little patience with the IRS clogging up the pipes with what ten-out-of-ten people with common sense would see as reasonable cause.

Our case this time for the home gamers was Estate of Agnes R. Skeba vs U.S..

Having Assets And Filing An Offer In Compromise

I glanced at the case because it involved an offer in compromise, a collections hearing, a lien and currently noncollectible (CNC) status.

That is a lot going on for approximately $23 grand in tax debt.

First thing I noticed was that the taxpayer represented himself before the Tax Court. This is referred to as “pro se.” It happens quite a bit, and it usually does not work out well for the taxpayer.

I double-shudder when I think about “pro se” and going hard procedural with the IRS, such as with liens and offers in compromise.

Let’s walk through it:

(1) On November 16, 2016 the taxpayer filed an Offer in Compromise. The tax was approximately $23 grand. He offered approximately $12 grand.

COMMENT: There are several “flavors” of Offers in Compromise. This one was the traditional vanilla: inability to pay or to pay in full. Those late-night commercials are hawking this type.

(2) On May 30, 2017 the IRS sent a Notice of Federal Tax Lien Filing.

The taxpayer filed for a hearing, called a Collection Due Process (CDP) hearing. I probably would have done the same.

(3) On July 11, 2017 the IRS indicated it would not accept the Offer in Compromise, at least as submitted. 

Taxpayer appealed. Again, I probably would have done the same.

(4) On September 27, 2017 the IRS settlement officer sent taxpayer a letter that the CDP hearing was being delayed until the Offer in Compromise was resolved.

COMMENT: Left hand: right hand. Happens all the time.

(5) Wouldn’t you know that the appeal of the Offer in Compromise was assigned to the same IRS settlement officer handling the Collections hearing?

(6) The IRS scheduled a telephone hearing for December 14, 2017. The settlement officer also offered to place the taxpayer’s case in currently noncollectible (CNC) status.

COMMENT: I have used CNC status over the years, especially during and after the Great Recession of 2008. The IRS realizes that there is no money to collect, so it places the case on hold, generally for a year or so. Their normal collections machinery is paused.

Mind you, the IRS is not writing-off the debt. They are allowing a break in collection activity, hoping your situation improves.

(7) Not waiting until the hearing, taxpayer on December 1 sent the settlement officer a letter addressing the rejection of his offer in compromise.

COMMENT. He should include additional or expanded financial information, as his offer was based on inability to pay. The common-sense response to rejection of an offer based on inability to pay is to expand on why one is unable to pay.

Having taken the stage, taxpayer also alleged that the IRS engaged in criminal activity.

COMMENT: Stop that. You are not winning with that behavior.

The settlement officer rescheduled the hearing for January 9th.

(8)  On December 12 taxpayer sent the settlement officer another letter lamenting the rejection of his offer in compromise.

COMMENT: Once again: no additional or expanded financial information. This action was fruitless and ill-advised.

(9) We finally get to the hearing. The settlement officer reviewed the offer in compromise. She sees debt of approximately $23 grand and assets of approximately $110 grand. Receiving no additional or expanded financial information from the taxpayer, the officer decided that rejection of the offer was appropriate.

(10) After the hearing taxpayer sent a letter to the settlement officer, complaining about the IRS Fresh Start Program and including correspondence the taxpayer previously exchanged with the Taxpayer Advocate Service.

Taxpayer was focused on the lien and highlighted a TAS letter including the statement “the IRS has determined that the lien should be withdrawn.”

He wanted the lien withdrawn.

The settlement officer, to her credit, looked into this. It did not change the outcome, but she did try.

The immediate takeaway is the someone with $100-plus grand in assets is probably not going to be able to offer-down $23 grand in tax debt, irrespective of having low income. While true as a generalization, there are several specific considerations.

(1)  Given his focus on removing an IRS lien, I presume that taxpayer’s house comprised most if not all of taxpayer’s assets. I can see not wanting to refinance when one has limited income. In truth, one probably could not refinance, as no traditional mortgage provider would originate the loan.

a.     And there is how I would respond to the request for additional financial information: by providing rejection letters from a couple of mortgage companies.

(2)  Let’s say that the house is not the lion’s share of the assets. Perhaps it is something else, like a retirement account.

a.     If a retirement account, I would argue economic hardship.

                                                                         i.      That is, taxpayer needs that asset and the income therefrom in order to meet reasonable basic living expenses. The loss of said asset would be an economic hardship.

                                                                      ii.      It is already stipulated that the taxpayer is low income. How hard of an argument is this?

(3)  In general, I am unmoved by the IRS filing a lien.

a.     I may be moved if disclosure of said lien would adversely affect one’s career or public status (a mayor or judge, for example), but those instances are few and far between.

b.     Distinguish a lien from a levy.

                                                                         i.      A lien just secures the government’s interest. A lien on my house cannot be collected until I sell the house.

                                                                      ii.      A levy is a different matter. The IRS going into your bank account is an example of a levy.

(4)  Let’s circle back to the presumption that taxpayer’s residence represented the majority of his assets, hence his focus on removing the lien. The IRS just bounced his offer. What happens next?

a.     Folks, the IRS cannot (barring exceptional circumstances) take one’s primary residence.

b.     Yep, he will get periodic and annoying IRS correspondence, but …

c.     … so what? There is little bite left in that dog.

d.     And after 10 years (without the IRS taking the matter to Court to obtain judgement), the statute of limitations will kick-in.

You can see the downside to a pro se, especially when dealing with IRS procedure. There is a lot going on here, and I suspect that – with professional advice – taxpayer could have gotten the offer. I doubt he would have gotten the lien released, though. He saved a few grand in professional fees in order to completely strike out with the IRS.

The case for the home gamers is Banks, TC Memo 2019-166.

Change In The Kiddie Tax

Congress took a tax calculation that was already a headache and made it worse.

I am looking at a tax change included in the year-end budget resolution.

Let’s talk again about the kiddie tax.

Years ago a relatively routine tax technique was to transfer income-producing assets to children and young adults. The technique was used mainly by high-income types (of course, as it requires income), and the idea was to redirect income that would be taxed at a parent’s or grandparent’s (presumably maximum) tax rate and tax it instead at a child/young adult’s lower tax rate.

As a parent, I immediately see issues with this technique. What if one of my kids is responsible and another is not? What if I am not willing to just transfer assets to my kids – or anyone for that matter? What if I do not wish to maximally privilege my kids before they even reach maturity? Nonetheless, the technique was there.

Congress of course saw the latent destruction of the republic.

Enter the kiddie tax in 1986.

In a classroom setting, the idea was to slice a kid’s income into three layers:

(1)  The first $1,050

(2)  The second $1,050

(3)  The rest of the kid’s income

Having sliced the income, one next calculated the tax on the slices:

(1)  The first $1,050 was tax-free.

(2)  The second $1,050 was taxed at the kid’s own tax rate.

(3)  The rest was taxed at the parents’ tax rate.

Let’s use an example:

(1)  In 2017 the kid has $20,100 of income.

(2)  The parents are at a marginal 25% tax rate.

Here goes:

(1)  Tax on the first slice is zero (-0-).

(2)  Let’s say the tax on the second slice is $105 ($1,050 times 10%).

(3)  Tax on the third slice is $4,500 (($20,100 – 2,100) times 25%).

The kid’s total 2017 tax is $4,605.

Let’s take the same numbers but change the tax year to 2018.

The tax is now $5,152.

Almost 12% more.

What happened?

Congress changed the tax rate for slice (3). It used to be the parent’s tax rate, but starting in 2018 one is to use trust tax rates instead.

If you have never seen trust rates before, here you go:

          

Have over $12,500 of taxable income and pay the maximum tax rate. I get the reasoning (presumably anyone using trusts is already at a maximum tax rate), but I still consider these rates to be extortion. Sometimes trusts are just that: one is providing security, navigating government programs or just protecting someone from their darker spirits. There is no mention of maximum tax rates in that sentence.

Let’s add gas to the fire.

The kiddie tax is paid on unearned income. The easiest type to understand is dividends and interest.

You know what else Congress considered to be unearned income?

Government benefits paid children whose parent was killed in military service. These are the “Gold Star” families you may have read about.

Guess what else?

Room and board provided college students on scholarship.

Seriously? We are taking people unlikely to be racking Thurston Howell III-level bucks and subjecting them to maximum tax rates?

Fortunately, Congress – in one of its few accomplishments for 2019 – repealed this change to the kiddie tax.

We are back to the previous law. While a pain, it was less a pain than what we got for 2018.

One more thing.

Kids who got affected by the kiddie tax changes can go back and amend their 2018 return.

I intend to review kiddie-tax returns here at Galactic Command to determine whether amending is worthwhile.

It’s a bit late for those affected, but it is something.

Merry Christmas

Year-End Retirement Tax Changes

On Friday December 20, 2019 the President signed two spending bills, averting a government shutdown at midnight.

The reason we are talking about it is that there were several tax provisions included in the bills. Many if not most are as dry as sand, but there are a few that affect retirement accounts and are worth talking about.

Increase the Age for Minimum Required Distributions (MRDs)

We know that we are presently required to begin distributions from our IRAs when we reach age 70 ½. The same requirement applies to a 401(k), unless one continues working and is not an owner. Interestingly, Roths have no MRDs until they are inherited.

In a favorable change, the minimum age for MRDs has been increased to 72.

Repeal the Age Limitation for IRA Contributions

Presently you can contribute to your 401(k) or Roth past the age of 70 ½. You cannot, however, contribute to your IRA past age 70 ½.

In another favorable change, you will now be allowed to contribute to your IRA past age 70 ½.

COMMENT: Remember that you generally need income on which you paid social security taxes (either employee FICA or self-employment tax) in order to contribute to a retirement account, including an IRA. In short, this change applies if you are working past 70 ½.

New Exception to 10% Early Distribution Penalty

Beginning in 2020 you will be allowed to withdraw up to $5,000 from your 401(k) or IRA within one year after the birth or adoption of a child without incurring the early distribution penalty.

BTW, the exception applies to each spouse, so a married couple could withdraw up to $10,000 without penalty.

And the “within one year” language means you can withdraw in 2020 for a child born in 2019.

Remember however that the distribution will still be subject to regular income tax. The exception applies only to the penalty.

Limit the Ability to Stretch an IRA

Stretching begins with someone dying. That someone had a retirement account, and the account was transferred to a younger beneficiary.

Take someone in their 80s who passes away with $2 million in an IRA. They have 4 grandkids, none older than age 24. The IRA is divided into four parts, each going to one of the grandkids. The required distribution on the IRAs used to be based on the life expectancy of someone in their 80s; it is now based on someone in their 20s. That is the concept of “stretching” an IRA.

Die after December 31, 2019 and the maximum stretch (with some exceptions, such as for a surviving spouse) is now 10 years.

Folks, Congress had to “pay” for the other breaks somehow. Here is the somehow.

Annuity Information and Options Expanded

When you get your 401(k) statement presently, it shows your account balance. If the statement is snazzy, you might also get performance information over a period of years.

In the future, your 401(k) statements will provide “lifetime income disclosure requirements.”

Great. What does that mean?

It means that the statement will show how much money you could get if you used all the money in the 401(k) account to buy an annuity.

The IRS is being given some time to figure out what the above means, and then employers will have an extra year before having to provide the infinitely-better 401(k) statements to employees and participants.

By the way …

You will never guess this, but the law change also makes it easier for employers to offer annuities inside their 401(k) plans.

Here is the shocked face:

 Expand the Small Employer Retirement Plan Tax Credit

In case you work for a small employer who does not offer a retirement plan, you might want to mention the enhanced tax credit for establishing a retirement plan.

The old credit was a flat $500. It got almost no attention, as $500 just doesn’t move the needle.

The new credit is $250 per nonhighly-compensated employee, up to $5,000.

At $5 grand, maybe it is now worth looking at.

Deducting State And Local Taxes On Your Individual Return

You probably already know about the change in the tax law for deducting state and local taxes on your personal return.

It used to be that you could itemize and deduct your state and local income taxes, as well as the real estate taxes on your house, without limitation.  Mind you, other restrictions may have kicked-in (such as the alternative minimum tax), but chances are you received some tax benefit from the deduction.

Then the Tax Cuts and Jobs Act put a $10,000 limit on the state income/local income/property tax itemized deduction.

Say for example that the taxes on your house are $5 grand and your state income taxes are $8 grand. The total is $13 grand, but the most you can deduct is $10 grand. The last $3 grand is wasted.

This is probably not problem if you live in Nevada, Texas or Florida, but it is likely a big problem if you live in California, New York, New Jersey or Connecticut.

There have been efforts in the House of Representatives to address this matter. One bill would temporarily raise the cap to $20,000 for married taxpayers before repealing the cap altogether for two years, for example.

The tax dollars involved are staggering. Even raising the top federal to 39.6% (where it was before the tax law change) to offset some of the bill’s cost still reduces federal tax receipts by over $500 billion over the next decade.

There are also political issues: The Urban-Brookings Tax Policy Center ranked the 435 Congressional districts on the percentage of households claiming the SALT (that is, state and local tax) deduction in 2016. Nineteen of the top 20 districts are controlled by Democrats. You can pretty much guess how this will split down party lines.

Then the you have the class issues: approximately two-thirds of the benefit from repealing the SALT cap would go to households with annual incomes over $200,000. Granted, these are the people who pay the taxes to begin with, but the point nonetheless makes for a tough sell.

And irrespective of what the House does, the Senate has already said they will not consider any such bill.

Let’s go over what wiggle room remains in this area. For purposes of our discussion, let’s separate state and local property taxes from state and local income taxes.

Property Taxes

The important thing to remember about the $10,000 limitation is that it addresses your personal taxes, such as your primary residence, your vacation home, property taxes on your car and so on.

Distinguish that from business-related property taxes.

If you are self-employed, have rental real estate, a farm or so on, those property taxes are considered related to that business activity. So what? That means they attach to that activity and are included wherever that activity is reported on your tax return. Rental real estate, for example, is reported on Schedule E. The real estate taxes are reported with the rental activity on Schedule E, not as itemized deductions on Schedule A. The $10,000 cap applies only to the taxes reported as itemized deductions on your Schedule A.

Let me immediately cut off a planning “idea.” Forget having the business/rental/farm pay the taxes on your residence. This will not work. Why? Because those taxes do not belong to the business/rental/farm, and merely paying them from the business/rental/farm bank account does not make them a business/rental/farm expense.

         

State and Local Income Taxes

State and local income taxes do not follow the property tax rule. Let’s say you have a rental in Connecticut. You pay income taxes to Connecticut. Reasoning from the property tax rule, you anticipate that the Connecticut income taxes would be reported along with the real estate taxes when you report the rental activity on your Schedule E.

You would be wrong.

Why?

Whereas the income taxes are imposed on a Connecticut activity, they are assessed on you as an individual. Connecticut does not see that rental activity as an “tax entity” separate from you. No, it sees you. With that as context, state and local income tax on activities reported on your individual tax return are assessed on you personally. This makes them personal income taxes, and personal income taxes are deducted as itemized deductions on Schedule A.

It gets more complicated when the income is reported on a Schedule K-1 from a “passthrough” entity. The classic passthrough entities include a partnership, LLC or S corporation. The point of the passthrough is that the entity (generally) does not pay tax itself. Rather, it “passes through” its income to its owners, who include those numbers with their personal income on their individual income tax returns.

What do you think: are state and local income taxes paid by the passthrough entity personal taxes to you (meaning itemized deductions) or do they attach to the activity and reported with the activity (meaning not itemized deductions)?

Unfortunately, we are back (in most cases) to the general rule: the taxes are assessed on you, making the taxes personal and therefore deductible only as an itemized deduction.

This creates a most unfavorable difference between a corporation that pays its own tax (referred to as a “C” corporation) and one that passes through its income to its shareholders (referred to as an “S” corporation).

The C corporation will be able to deduct its state and local income taxes until the cows come home, but the S corporation will be limited to $10,000 per shareholder.

Depending on the size of the numbers, that might be sufficient grounds to revoke an S corporation election and instead file and pay taxes as a C corporation.

Is it fair? As we have noted before on this blog, what does fair have to do with it?

We ran into a comparable situation a few years ago with an S corporation client. It had three shareholders, and their individual state and local tax deduction was routinely disallowed by the alternative minimum tax.  This meant that there was zero tax benefit to any state and local taxes paid, and the company varied between being routinely profitable and routinely very profitable. The SALT tax deduction was a big deal.

We contacted Georgia, as the client had sizeable jobs in Georgia, and we asked whether they could – for Georgia purposes – file as a C corporation even though they filed their federal return as an S corporation. Georgia was taken aback, as we were the first or among the first to present them with this issue.

Why did we do this?

Because a C corporation pays its own tax, meaning that the Georgia taxes could be deducted on the federal S corporation return. We could sidestep that nasty itemized deduction issue, at least with Georgia.

Might the IRS have challenged our treatment of the Georgia taxes?

Sure, they can challenge anything. It was our professional opinion, however, that we had a very strong argument. Who knows: maybe CTG would even appear in the tax literature and seminar circuit.  While flattering, this would have been a bad result for us, as the client would not have appreciated visible tax controversy. We would have won the battle and lost the war.

However, the technique is out there and other states are paying attention, given the new $10,000 itemized deduction limitation. Connecticut, for example, has recently allowed its passthroughs to use a variation of the technique we used with Georgia.

I suspect many more states will wind up doing the same.

New Tax On Colleges

I read that Harvard estimates that a change from the Tax Cut and Jobs Act will cost approximately $38 million.

Harvard is referring to the “endowment tax” on colleges and universities.

Have you heard about this?

Let us set up the issue by discussing the taxation of private foundations.

The “best” type of charity (at least tax-wise) is the 501(c)(3). These are the March of Dimes and United Ways, and they are publicly-supported by a broad group of interested donors. In general, this means a large number of individually modest donations. Mind you, there can be an outsized donation (or several), but there are mathematical tests to restrict a limited number of donors from providing a disproportionate amount of the charity’s support.

Then we get to private foundations. In general, this means that a limited number of donors provide a disproportionate amount of support. Say that CTG comes into big bucks and sets up the CTG Family Foundation. There is little question that one donor provided a lopsided amount of donations: that donor would be me. In its classic version, I would be the only one funding the CTG Family Foundation.

There can be issues when a foundation and a person are essentially alter egos, and the Code provides serious penalties should that someone forget the difference. Foundations have enhanced information reporting requirements, and they also pay a 2% income tax on their net investment income. The 2% tax is supposedly to pay for the increased IRS attention given foundations compared to publicly-supported charities.

The Tax Cut and Jobs Act created a new tax – the 1.4% tax on endowment income – and it targets an unexpected group: colleges and universities that enroll at least 500 tuition-paying students and have endowment assets of at least $500,000 per student.

Let me think this through. I went to graduate school at the University of Missouri at Columbia. Its student body is approximately 30,000. UMC would need an endowment of at least $15 billion to come within reach of this tax.

I have two immediate thoughts:

(1)  Tax practitioners commonly refer to the 2% tax on foundations as inconsequential, because … well, it is. My fee might be more than the tax; and

(2)  I am having a difficult time getting worked up over somebody who has $15 billion in the bank.

The endowment tax is designed to hit a minimal number of colleges and universities – probably less than 50 in total. It is expected to provide approximately $200 million in new taxes annually, not an insignificant sum but not budget-balancing either. As a consequence, there has been speculation as to its provenance and purpose.

With this Congress has again introduced brain-numbing complexity to the tax Code. For example, the tax is supposed to exclude endowment funds used to carry-on the school’s tax-exempt purpose.  Folks, it does not take 30-plus years of tax practice to argue that everything a school does furthers its tax-exempt purpose, meaning there is nothing left to tax. Clearly that is not the intent of the law, and tax practitioners are breathlessly awaiting the IRS to provide near-Torahic definitions of terms in this area.  

The criticism of the tax has already begun. Here is Harvard referring to its $40 billion endowment:

“We remain opposed to this damaging and unprecedented tax that will not only reduce resources available to colleges and universities to promote excellence in teaching and to sustain innovative research…”

Breathe deeply there, Winchester. Explain again why any school with $40 billion in investments even charges tuition.

Which brings us to Berea College in central Kentucky, south of Lexington. The school has an endowment of approximately $700,000 per student, so it meets the first requirement of the tax. The initial draft of the tax bill would have pulled Berea into its dragnet, but there was bipartisan agreement that the second requirement refer to “tuition-paying” students.

So what?

Berea College does not charge tuition.