When A Good Cause Is Not Enough

Let’s talk about the tax issues of tax-exempt entities. It sounds like a contradiction, doesn’t it?

It actually is its own area of practice. Several years ago I was elbow-deep working with nonprofits, and I attended a seminar presented by a specialist from Washington, D.C. All he did was nonprofits. At least he was in the right town for it.

There are the big-picture tax-exempt issues. For example, a 501(c)(3) has to be publicly-supported. You know there is a tractor-trailer load of rules as to what “publicly supported” means.

Then there are more specialized issues. One of them is the unrelated business income tax. The concept here is that a nonprofit cannot conduct an ongoing business and avoid tax because of its exemption. A museum may be a great charitable cause, for example, but one cannot avoid tax on a chain of chili restaurants by having the museum own them.

That is not what museums do. It is unrelated to “museum-ness,” and as such the chili restaurants will be taxed as unrelated business income.

Sometimes it can get tricky. Say that you have a culinary program at a community college. As part of the program, culinary students prepare meals, which are in turn sold on premises to the students, faculty and visitors. A very good argument can be made that this activity should not be taxed.  

What is the difference? In the community college’s case, the activity represents an expansion of the underlying (and exempt) culinary education program. The museum cannot make this argument with its chili restaurants.

However, what if the museum charges admission to view its collection of blue baby boots from Botswana? We are now closer to the example of culinary students preparing meals for sale. Exhibiting collections is what museums do.

I am looking a technical advice memorandum (TAM) on unrelated business income. This is internal IRS paperwork, and it means that an IRS high-level presented an issue to the National Office for review.

Let’s set it up.

There is a community college.

The community college has an alumni association. The association has one voting member, which is a political subdivision of the state.

The alumni association has a weekly farmers market, with arts and crafts and music and food vendors. It sounds like quite the event. It uses the parking areas of the community college, as well as campus rest rooms and utilities. Sometimes the college charges the alumni association; sometimes it does not.

The alumni association in turn rents parking lot space to vendors at the market.

All the money from the event goes to the college. Monies are used to fund scholarships and maintain facilities, such as purchasing a computer room for the library and maintaining the football field.

OBSERVATION: The tax Code does not care that any monies raised are to be used for a charitable purpose. The Code instead focuses on the activity itself. Get too close to a day-in-and-day-out business and you will be taxed as a business. Granted, you may get a charitable deduction for giving it away, but that is a different issue.

From surveys, the majority of visitors to the farmers market are age 55 and above.

There was an IRS audit. The revenue agent thought he spotted an unrelated business activity. The file moved up a notch or two at the IRS and a bigwig requested a TAM.

The association immediately conceded that the event was a trade or business regularly carried on. It had to: it was a highly-organized weekly activity.

The association argued instead that the event was its version of “museum-ness,” meaning the event furthered the association’s exempt purpose. It presented three arguments:

(1) The farmers market contributed to the exempt purpose of the college by drawing potential students and donors to campus, helping to develop civic support.

(2) The farmers market lessened the burden of government (that is, the college).

(3) The farmers market relieved the distress of the elderly.

The IRS saw these arguments differently:

(1) Can you provide any evidence to back that up? A mere assertion is neither persuasive nor dispositive.

COMMENT: The association should have taken active steps – year-after-year – to obtain and accumulate supporting data. It may have been worth hiring someone who does these things. Not doing so made it easy for the IRS to dismiss the argument as self-serving.

(2) At no time did the community college take on the responsibility for a farmers market, and the college is the closest thing to a government in this conversation. Granted, the college benefited from the proceeds, but that is not the test. The test is whether the association is (1) taking on a governmental burden and (2) actually lessening the burden on the government thereby.  As the government (that is, the college) never took on the burden, there can be no lessening of said burden.

COMMENT: This argument is interesting, as perhaps – with planning – something could have been arranged. For example, what if the college sponsored the weekly event, but contracted out event planning, organization and execution to the alumni association? 

(3) While the market did provide a venue for the elderly to gather and socialize, that is not the same as showing that the market was organized and worked with the intent of addressing the special needs of the elderly. 

COMMENT: Perhaps if the association had done things specifically for the elderly – transportation to/from retirement homes or free drink or meal tickets, for example – there would have been an argument. As it was, the high percentage of elderly was a happenstance and not a goal of the event.

There was no “museum-ness” there.

And then the association presented what I consider to be its best argument:

(4) We charged rent. Rent is specifically excluded as unrelated business income, unless special circumstances are present – which are not.

Generally speaking, rent is not taxable as unrelated business income unless there is debt on the property. The question is whether the payments the association received were rent or were something else.

What do I mean?

We would probably agree that leasing space at a strip mall is a textbook definition of rent. Let’s move the needle a bit. What would you call payment received for a hospital room? That doesn’t feel like rent, does it? What has changed? Your principal objective while in a hospital is medical attention; provision of the room is ancillary. The provision of space went from being the principal purpose of the transaction to being incidental.

The IRS saw the farmers’ market/arts and craft/et cetera as something more than a parking lot. The vendors were not so much interested in renting space as they were in participating (and profiting) from a well-organized destination and entertainment event. Landlords provide space. Landlords do not provide events. 

The IRS decided this was not rent.  

You ask why I thought this was the association’s best argument? Be fair, I did not say it was a winning argument, only that it was the best available.

The alumni association still has alternatives. Examination requested the TAM, so there will be no mercy there. That leaves Appeals and then possibly going to Court. A Court may view things differently.

And I am unhappy with the alumni association. I suspect that the farmers’ market went from humble origins to a well-organized, varied and profitable event. As a practitioner, however, I have to question whether they ever sought professional advice when this thing started generating pallet-loads of cash. Granted, the activity may have evolved to the point that no tax planning could save it, but we do not know that. What we do know is that little – if any – planning occurred. 

What If You Put Too Much In An IRA?

I am looking at a Tax Court case (Dunn v Commissioner) for $1,460 in tax and $292 in penalties. It seemed a low dollar amount to take to Tax Court, which in turn prompted me to think that Dunn was either an attorney or CPA. He would then represent himself, skipping the professional fees.

Dunn is an attorney.

Then I read what landed in him in hot water.

Folks, sometimes we have to pay attention to the details.

We have talked on this blog about shiny objects like real estate investment trusts, charitable remainder trusts, private foundations and so forth.  Hopefully we have told the story in an entertaining way, as tax literature does not tend to be riveting reading. For most of us, however, our finances and taxes are quite humdrum. Odds are our tax troubles are going to come from not attending to the details.

Let’s tell the story.

Stephen Dunn is a tax attorney in Michigan. In 2008 he was working for a law firm. He finished 2008 as self-employed and continued as such through 2010. He participated in the law firm’s retirement plan – presumably a 401(k) - for the part of 2008 he was there.

He made the following IRA contributions:

            2008                          $6,000

            2009                          $6,000

            2010                          $ 800

The IRS took a look and disallowed his 2008 IRA contribution.

Why?

Because he was covered by a retirement plan at work.

There is no income “test” for an IRA contribution if one (or one’s spouse) does not have another available retirement plan. Have a plan at work, however, and the rule changes. The tax Code will disallow your IRA deduction if you make too much money.

What is too much?

If you are a single filer, it starts at $61,000. If you are a married filer, it starts at $98,000.

For what it is worth, I consider these income limits to be idiocy. I cringe when someone thinks that $61,000 is “too much money.” Perhaps it was back in the 1950s, but nowadays $61,000 will not rock you a Thurston Howell lifestyle anywhere across the fruited plain. Remember also that a maximum IRA is $5,500 ($6,500 if one is age 50 and above). If taxes on $5,500 are a fiscal threat to the Treasury, we have much more serious problems than any discussion about IRAs.

Dunn got caught-up in the rules and made too much money for a deductible IRA contribution in 2008.

No problem, thought Dunn the attorney. He rolled the $6,000 forward and deducted it in 2010. Mind you, he wrote checks for only $800 in 2010. The $6,000 was a “carryforward,” so to speak.

So, what is the problem?

Generally speaking, individuals report their taxes on the cash basis of accounting. This means that they report income in the year they receive a check, and they report deductions in the year they write a check. The tax Code does allow some latitude with IRAs, as one can fund a previous-year IRA through April 15^th of the following year. That is a special case, however. The tax Code however does not automatically “carryover” an excess contribution from one year to the next. In fact, overfund an IRA and the tax Code will assess a 6% penalty for every year you leave the excess in the IRA.

How do tax professionals handle this in practice?

Easy enough: you have the IRA custodian move it to the following year. Say that you are age 58 and put $7,000 in your 2014 IRA. You have overfunded $500, no matter what the results of the income test are. You would call the custodian (Dunn’s custodian was Vanguard), explain your situation and ask them to move the $500.

Now there is a detail here that has to be clarified. Say that you contributed $1,000 of the $7,000 in March, 2015 (for your 2014 tax year). You could ask Vanguard to move $500 of that $1,000 to 2015. They probably would, as they received it in 2015.

Let’s change the facts. You contributed all of the $7,000 in 2014. Vanguard now will likely not move any of the money because none of it was received in 2015.  The best Vanguard can do is send you a $500 check, which you will deposit and send back to Vanguard as a 2015 contribution.

What did Dunn not do?

He never called Vanguard and had them move the money. In his case it would have been a bit frustrating, as he had to get from 2008 to 2010. He would be calling Vanguard a lot. He would have to refund 2008 and fund 2009; then refund 2009 and fund 2010. Vanguard may have not wanted him as a customer by that point, but that is a different issue.

Dunn tried. He even requested the equivalent of mercy, pointing out:

…Congress’ policy of encouraging retirement savings supports the deduction they seek.”

Here is the Tax Court:

            These arguments are addressed to the wrong forum.”

Ouch.

Dunn did not pay attention to the details. He lost his case and also got smacked with a penalty. I am not a fan of IRS-automatically-hitting-people-in-the-face-with-a-penalty, but in this case I understand.

After all, Dunn is a tax attorney.

Helping Out A Family Member’s Business

Let’s say that you have a profitable business. You have a family member who has an unprofitable business. You want to help out the family member. You meet with your tax advisor to determine if there is tax angle to consider.

Here is your quiz question and it will account for 100% of your grade:

What should you to maximize the chances of a tax deduction?

Let’s discuss Espaillat and Lizardo v Commissioner.

Mr. Jose Espaillat was married to Ms. Mirian Lizardo. Jose owned a successful landscaping business in Phoenix for a number of years. In 2006 his brother (Leoncio Espaillat) opened a scrap metal business (Rocky Scrap Metal) in Texas. Rocky Scrap organized as a corporation with the Texas secretary of state and filed federal corporate tax returns for 2008 and 2009.

Being a good brother, Jose traveled regularly to help out Leoncio with the business. Regular travel reached the point where Jose purchased a home in Texas, as he was spending so much time there.

Rocky Scrap needed a big loan. The bank wanted to charge big interest, so Jose stepped in. He lent money; he also made direct purchases on behalf of Rocky Scrap. In 2007 and 2008 he contributed at least $285,000 to Rocky Scrap. Jose did not charge interest; he just wanted to be paid back.

Jose and Mirian met with their accountant to prepare their 2008 individual income tax return. Jose’s landscaping business was a Schedule C proprietorship/sole member LLC, and their accountant recommended they claim the Rocky Scrap monies on a second Schedule C. They would report Rocky Scrap the same way as they reported the landscaping business, which answer made sense to Jose and Mirian. Inexplicably, the $285,000 somehow became $359,000 when it got on their tax return.

In 2009 Rocky Scrap filed for bankruptcy. I doubt you would be surprised if I told you that Jose paid for the attorney. At least the bankruptcy listed Jose as a creditor.

In 2010 Jose entered into a stock purchase agreement with Leoncio. He was to receive 50% of the Rocky Scrap stock in exchange for the aforementioned $285,000 – plus another $50,000 Jose was to put in.

In 2011 Jose received $6,000 under the bankruptcy plan. It appears that the business did not improve all that much.

In 2011 Miriam and their son (Eduan) moved to Texas to work and help at Rocky Scrap. Jose stayed behind in Phoenix taking care of the landscaping business.

Then the family relationship deteriorated. In 2013 a judge entered a temporary restraining order prohibiting Jose, Miriam and Eduan from managing or otherwise directing the business operations of Rocky Scrap.  

Jose, Miriam and Eduan walked away. I presume they sold the Texas house, as they did not need it anymore.

The IRS looked at Jose and Mirian’s 2008 and 2009 individual tax returns.  There were several issues with the landscaping business and with their itemized deductions, but the big issue was the $359,000 Schedule C loss.

The IRS disallowed the whole thing.

On to Tax Court they went. Jose and Mirian’s petition asserted that they were involved in a business called “Second Hand Metal” and that the loss was $285,000. What happened to the earlier number of $359,000? Who knows.

What was the IRS’ argument?

Easy: there was no trade or business to put on a Schedule C. There was a corporation organized in Texas, and its name was Rocky Scrap Metals. It filed its own tax return.  The loss belonged to it. Jose and Mirian may have loaned it money, they may have worked there, they may have provided consulting expertise, but at no time were Jose and Mirian the same thing as Rocky Scrap Metal.

Jose and Mirian countered that they intended all along to be owners of Rocky Scrap. In fact, they thought that they were. They would not have bought a house in Texas otherwise. At a minimum, they were in partnership or joint venture with Rocky Scrap if they were not in fact owners of Rocky Scrap.

Unfortunately thinking and wanting are not the same as having and doing. It did not help that Leoncio represented himself as the sole owner when filing the federal corporate tax returns or the bankruptcy paperwork. The Court pointed out the obvious: they were not shareholders in 2008 and 2009. In fact, they were never shareholders.

OBSERVATION: Also keep in mind that Rocky Scrap filed its own corporate tax returns. That meant that it was a “C” corporation, and Jose and Mirian would not have been entitled to a share of its loss in any event. What Jose and Mirian may have hoped for was an “S” corporation, where the company passes-through its income or loss to its shareholders, who in turn report said income or loss on their individual tax return. 

 

The Court had two more options to consider.

First, perhaps Jose made a capital investment. If that investment had become worthless, then perhaps … 

Problem is that Rocky Scrap continued on. In fact, in 2013 it obtained a restraining order against Jose, Miriam and Eduan, so it must have still been in existence.  Granted, it filed for bankruptcy in 2009. While bankruptcy is a factor in evaluating worthlessness, it is not the only factor and it was offset by Rocky Metal continuing in business.  If Rocky Scrap became worthless, it did not happen in 2009.

Second, what if Jose made a loan that went uncollectible?

The Court went through the same reasoning as above, with the same conclusion.

OBSERVATION: In both cases, Jose would have netted only a $3,000 per year capital loss. This would have been small solace against the $285,000 the IRS disallowed.

The Court decided there was no $285,000 loss.

Then the IRS – as is its recent unattractive wont – wanted a $12,000 penalty on top of the $60-plus-thousand-dollar tax adjustment it just won. Obviously if the IRS can find a different answer in 74,000+ pages of tax Code, one must be a tax scofflaw and deserving of whatever fine the IRS deems appropriate.

The Court decided the IRS had gone too far on the penalty.

Here is the Court:

He [Jose] is familiar with running a business and keeping records but has a limited knowledge of the tax code. In sum, Mr. Espaillat is an experienced small business owner but not a sophisticated taxpayer.”

Jose and Mirian relied on their tax advisor, which is an allowable defense to the accuracy-related penalty. Granted, the tax advisor got it wrong, but that is not the same as Jose and Mirian getting it wrong. The point of seeing a dentist is not doing the dentistry yourself.

What should the tax advisor done way back when, when meeting with Jose and Mirian to prepare their 2008 tax return?

First, he should have known the long-standing doctrine that a taxpayer devoting time and energy to the affairs of a corporation is not engaged in his own trade or business. The taxpayer is an employee and is furthering the business of the corporation.

Granted Jose and Mirian put-in $285,000, but any tax advantage from a loan was extremely limited – unless they had massive unrealized capital gains somewhere. Otherwise that capital loss was releasing a tax deduction at the rate of $3,000 per year. One should live so long.

The advisor should have alerted them that they needed to be owners. Retroactively. They also needed Rocky Scrap to be an S corporation.  Retroactively. It would also have been money well-spent to have an attorney draw up corporate minutes and update any necessary paperwork.

That is also the answer to our quiz question: to maximize your chance of a tax deduction you and the business should become one-and-the-same. This means a passthrough entity: a proprietorship, a partnership, an LLC or an S corporation. You do not want that business filing its own tax return.  The best you could do then is have a worthless investment or uncollectible loan, with very limited tax benefits.

The Income Awakens

Despite the chatter of politicians, we are not soon filing income taxes on the back of a postcard. A major reason is the calculation of income itself. There can be reasonable dispute in calculating income, even for ordinary taxpayers and far removed from the rarified realms of the ultra-wealthy or the multinationals.    

How? Easy. Say you have a rental duplex. What depreciation period should you use for the property: 15 years? 25? 35? No depreciation at all? Something else?

And sometimes the reason is because the taxpayer knows just enough tax law to be dangerous.

Let’s talk about a fact pattern you do not see every day. Someone sells a principal residence – you know, a house with its $500,000 tax exclusion. There is a twist: they sell the house on a land contract. They collect on the contract for a few years, and then the buyer defaults. The house comes back.  

How would you calculate their income from a real estate deal gone bad?

You can anticipate it has something to do with that $500,000 exclusion.

Marvin DeBough bought a house on 80 acres of land. He bought it back in the 1960s for $25,000. In 2006 he sold it for $1.4 million. He sold it on a land contract.

COMMENT: A land contract means that the seller is playing bank. The buyer has a mortgage, but the mortgage is to the seller. To secure the mortgage, the seller retains the deed to the property, and the buyer does not receive the deed until the mortgage is paid off. This is in contrast to a regular mortgage, where the buyer receives the deed but the deed is subject to the mortgage. The reason that sellers like land contracts is because it is easier to foreclose in the event of nonpayment.

 

 DeBough had a gain of $657,796.

OBSERVATION: I know: $1.4 million minus $25,000 is not $657,796. Almost all of the difference was a step-up in basis when his wife passed away.  

DeBough excluded $500,000 of gain, as it was his principal residence. That resulted in taxable gain of $157,796. He was to receive $1.4 million. As a percentage, 11.27 cents on every dollar he receives ($157,796 divided by $1,400,000) would be taxable gain.

He received $505,000. Multiply that by 11.27% and he reported $56,920 as gain.

In 2009 the buyers defaulted and the property returned to DeBough. It cost him $3,723 in fees to reacquire the property. He then held on to the property.

What is DeBough’s income?

Here is his calculation:

Original gain		157,796
Reported to-date		(56,920)
Cost of foreclosure		(3,723)
		97,153

I don’t think so, said the IRS. Here is their calculation:

Cash received		505,000
Reported to-date		(56,920)
		448,080

DeBough was outraged. He wanted to know what the IRS had done with his $500,000 exclusion.

The IRS trotted out Section 1038(e):

         (e)  Principal residences.

If-

(1) subsection (a) applies to a reacquisition of real property with respect to the sale of which gain was not recognized under section 121 (relating to gain on sale of principal residence); and

(2)  within 1 year after the date of the reacquisition of such property by the seller, such property is resold by him,

then, under regulations prescribed by the Secretary, subsections (b) , (c) , and (d) of this section shall not apply to the reacquisition of such property and, for purposes of applying section 121 , the resale of such property shall be treated as a part of the transaction constituting the original sale of such property.

DeBough was not happy about that “I year after the date of the reacquisition” language. However, he pointed out, it does not technically say that the $500,000 is NOT AVAILABLE if the property is NOT SOLD WITHIN ONE YEAR.

I give him credit. He is a lawyer by temperament, apparently.  DeBough could find actionable language on the back of a baseball card.

It was an uphill climb. Still, others have pulled it off, so maybe he had a chance.

The Court observed that there is no explanation in the legislative history why Congress limited the exclusion to sellers who resell within one year of reacquisition. Still, it seemed clear that Congress did in fact limit the exclusion, so the “why” was going to have to wait for another day.

DeBough lost his case. He owed tax.

And the Court was right. The general rule – when the property returned to DeBough – is that every dollar DeBough received was taxable income, reduced by any gain previously taxed and limited to the overall gain from the sale. DeBough was back to where he was before, except that he received $505,000 in the interim. The IRS wanted its cut of the $505,000.

Yes, Congress put an exception in there should the property be resold within one year. The offset – although unspoken – is that the seller can claim the $500,000 exclusion, but he/she claims it on the first sale, not the second. One cannot keep claiming the $500,000 over and over again on the same property.

Since Debough did not sell within one year, he will claim the $500,000 when he sells the property a second time.

When you look at it that way, he is not out anything. He will have his day, but that day has to wait until he sells the property again.

And there is an example of tax law. Congress put in an exception to a rule, but even the Court cannot tell you what Congress was thinking.