Archive for 'Taxes'

Jul 15

The IRS refers to it as the “responsible person” penalty.  It applies to failure to remit withheld federal payroll taxes.  You can think of federal withholding taxes as having five pieces, as follows:

  • Federal income tax withheld
  • Social security withheld
  • Medicare withheld
  • Employer match of social security
  • Employer match of Medicare

Here is the concept: the IRS considers the first three to be the employees’ money, which the employer holds in trust. When the employer fails to remit these, it is not only tax noncompliance but also theft. The IRS is very harsh on this issue and will impose one of its harshest penalties: the “responsible person” penalty. This penalty is 100%. Yes, you read that correctly.

You never want to be “responsible” for this purpose. The IRS can chase to ground anyone it considers responsible and assess the penalty. It doesn’t matter whether you own the company, or are an officer, or even still work there

Think about the math for a moment. The company falls behind on its payroll taxes. The IRS will proceed against the company for the taxes. If it then chooses to assess penalties, it does so against the responsible person. That penalty is 100%. The company pays. The responsible person pays. The IRS is paid twice.

Let’ go over a quick example: Let’s say that the amounts are as follows:

  • Federal income tax                 $1,800
  • Social security withheld          $  336
  • Medicare withheld                   $  116
  • Employer social security         $  496
  • Employer Medicare                 $  116

When the IRS goes against the company, it will want a check for $2,864 ($1,800 + 336 + 116 + 496 + 116).

NOTE: The employer social security is higher than the employee withholding because of the 2-point reduction in employee social security for 2012.  The employer percentage remained at 6.2% whereas the employee share was reduced to 4.2%.  This was part of the effort to stimulate (or at least not de-stimulate) the economy. It is also slated to expire at the end of 2012.

If the IRS assesses the responsible person, that penalty will be $2,252 ($ 1,800 + 336 + 116). Notice that the employer share doesn’t count for purposes of this penalty. Small consolation.

There are two major tests that the IRS will consider to determine if someone will be charged with the “responsible person” penalty:

(1)   Did the person have a responsibility to collect, account for and pay the trust fund taxes; and

(2)   Did the person willfully fail to perform this duty?

Let’s break down the first test. What if you are a payroll manager, responsible for running payroll and correctly accounting for withholding taxes? Are you responsible? No, not by itself, because you do not have authority to pay bills and write checks. What if you are the treasurer, with authority to write checks? Are you responsible? You will have the IRS’ attention, but the technical answer is no, not by itself. In our next blog we will discuss a taxpayer who wrote over 1,800 checks but argued that he was not a responsible person. The IRS did not believe him, of course, so off they went to court.

On to the second test. We are presently representing a responsible person client on the issue of willfulness. Willful means that one voluntarily and intentionally paid, or continued to pay, other creditors while knowing that the company failed to pay over withheld funds to the government. The IRS in the past has argued that payments to a creditor – mind you, any payments to any creditor – could be sufficient to show willfulness.

Fortunately the courts have slowed down the IRS. Let’s say the check writer was unaware of the lapsed payroll deposits, for example. How? One way is lack of financial sophistication. What if the bookkeeper “took care of it,” and the bookkeeper suddenly took ill, became disabled or left town? The business owner or manager could well need time to ramp-up, whether that means payroll, using QuickBooks or any other duty previously performed by the bookkeeper. Can one say there is “willful” intent while the owner or manager is struggling through the learning curve? Let’s swing the other way and say the check writer was financially sophisticated. What is your opinion if told that the check writer wrote checks only infrequently, and that when the primary signor was on vacation or otherwise unavailable? What if the check writer was unaware of any payroll problems? What if the check writer is authorized to pay vendor payables but excluded from any payroll responsibilities? What if the check writer was intimidated by his/her boss?

This area is of concern because of the poor economy in the last several years. There is great temptation to consider payroll taxes as yet another funding source, reasoning that the IRS can wait like any other creditor. That is not true. The IRS is not just any other creditor. The IRS can assess and collect tax for 10 years past the assessment date, and longer than that if it reduces the assessment to a judgment. And do not assume this is automatically dischargeable in bankruptcy court.  This is called “expensive money.”

Next blog: we will talk about Tarpoff and his responsible person penalty.

Jul 10

An easy way to reinstate nonprofit status will expire at the end of 2012.

You may recall that the IRS recently required nonprofits to file annually. This was a sea change from prior practice, where the smallest nonprofits were not required to file at all. Under the new rules, everyone has to file. To make it less burdensome, the smallest can file Form 990-N, also called the “postcard.” Nonprofits were alerted that three successive years of nonfiling would now result in revocation of nonprofit status. The IRS held true to its word and revoked the status of numerous nonprofits.

To recover tax-exempt status, the nonprofit must (again) file an application (Form 1023). A key issue here is that the nonprofit also has to present “reasonable cause” why it did not previously comply with IRS requirements.  The IRS can be harsh on what it considers to be “reasonable cause.” For example, let’s say that your CPA takes ill and, as a consequence, your tax returns are filed late. Many if not most people would consider that to constitute “reasonable cause” for late filing. The IRS disagrees. They argue that you could have hired another tax professional to prepare the return on time.

If you are small nonprofit (defined as gross receipts of $50,000 or less) the IRS will automatically deem you to have “reasonable cause.” You still have to file Form 1023, be careful to include certain prescribed language and attach a $100 check.

What is very, very important is that you do this by December 31, 2012. Starting in 2013 all nonprofits, whether large or small, must present reasonable cause when resubmitting for tax-exempt status.

Jul 07

It came to our attention that the IRS is sending erroneous notices on 2010 Roth conversions. If this is you, you may remember that you were allowed to spread the tax cost of converting your regular IRA to a Roth IRA over two years.  The notice states that you owe tax for 2010, which you would had you not spread the tax over two years.

You do need to respond to the notice. The IRS is aware of the software glitch, however, so we expect these notices to be resolved expeditiously.

Jul 03

I was reading the following recently, and we will use it as a springboard for our discussion today:

In its continued assault on real estate investors, the Court held in Jafarpour and Prang v. Commissioner, …, the taxpayers were not actively involved in a real estate trade or business nor was she a real estate professional ….

Prang is just one more taxpayer to fall under the IRS’s aggressive assault on real estate investors.

That writer and I do not agree on Jafarpour and Prang (“Prang”).

We are talking today about the taxation of real estate activities. Ever since 1986 we have had the passive activity rules, which Congress used to address the problem of tax shelters. The overall concept is simple: if an activity is considered to be passive, then losses from the activity cannot be subtracted from income considered nonpassive. Here is an example: you will not be allowed to claim losses or tax credits from an Alpaca investment against your W-2 income and bonus.

There are exceptions for real estate activities. This is not surprising, considering how significant real estate is to the national economy. The exception that Prang wanted was the “real estate professional” exception. If she could attain that, then her real estate activities would be nonpassive. She could subtract losses to her heart’s content.

There are two basic requirements to being a real estate pro:

(1)   More than one-half of your work hours have to be real-estate related, and

(2)   You have to work more than 750 hours in real estate

We have several real estate pro clients. A builder or broker qualifies, for example. These guys work real estate full-time, so they are easy to identify. What if you mix real estate with non-real estate activities? Further, what if the total hours are close?  You had better keep good records. That gets us to Prang.

Jafarpour was the husband. He sold stock options in 2006.

Prang was the wife. She was a chiropractor. Unfortunately she got injured and sold her practice during the middle of 2006.

So Prang and her husband came into cash and were looking for something to do. They have some experience in real estate. They have rented a former residence in California for a decade, for example. She attended seminars on real estate investing, including a course at the community college. The community college instructor explained the additional depreciation available for Katrina-affected areas (referred to as the GO Zone).

Mrs. Prang liked the idea and they snapped up three properties in Louisiana and Alabama. They almost immediately signed contracts with management companies to handle the properties. After all, they live almost 2,000 miles away. They returned to California.

They claimed over $271,000 in real estate losses on their 2006 tax return. Surprisingly, this caught the IRS’ attention. They were audited.

Jafapour immediately admitted that he was not a real estate pro for 2006. Not a problem, as Mrs. Prang claimed that she was the real estate pro. The IRS said: let’s go through the math: how many hours did you work and how many hours were in real estate?

The way to prove this is to show a record or log, preferably kept contemporaneously, showing what you did and how long it took. Mrs. Prang had an appointment book at the chiropractic office, so that should establish the chiropractic hours. The IRS looked at it and had questions. Daily visits were often illegible. There were daily totals, but the IRS was unable to determine what the totals represented. The totals frequently did not coincide with the number of patients filled-in for the day or the hours Mrs. Prang was supposedly working. Prang deepened the hole by attesting that she left the practice after selling in June. However there were e-mails and notations that she was still involved.

The IRS moved over to the real estate logs. The log was divided into sections. Immediately they were curious because she wrote her activities in pen but the number of hours in pencil. Mrs. Prang explained that she did this so she could cross-reference her time with phone records and make adjustments. Flipping through, the IRS saw several times the same task recorded in multiple sections. More than once the amount of time seemed excessive for the task. For example, Prang noted that she spent one hour on November 8, 2006 reading the following e-mail:

Hi Lecia, I’m your loan processor and will be your main contact person from this point on. I received the FedEx package you sent back. I will review it and prepare the file for my underwriter to review. I will update you with the status within 3 business days.”

So she was a slow reader. The IRS pressed on. They spotted several days where she said he worked 17 or more hours, which was impressive. Problem is that she noted the same tasks on more than one day. She described doing something while she was actually on a plane back to California, which would have been a Copperfield-worthy trick. Some of the e-mails she claimed to have sent were from her husband’s e-mail account – and electronically signed by her husband.

The IRS came to the conclusion that she manufactured the logs after-the-fact, which greatly weakened their credibility. She worked the logs to get the answer she wanted. The IRS trusted none of it, denied her real estate professional status and disallowed her loss.

Prang went to Tax Court. Here is the Court:

We would have to engage in complete guesswork to determine how much time Ms. Prang spent at her chiropractic business on a particular day during 2006, let alone the entire year. We decline to engage in such dubious speculation.”

We are not convinced that Ms. Prang contemporaneously recorded her actions in the real estate log. Petitioners’ unreasonable assertions are so pervasive that the entire log is tainted with incredibility. Moreover, petitioners’ appointment book is frequently illegible and generally ambiguous. While Ms. Prang may have invested a considerable amount of time in real estate activities during 2006, petitioners’ records are simply too unreliable for us to draw any sound conclusion.”

The Tax Court found the logs unreliable. With them she couldn’t prove her real estate pro status. Without that status she could not claim losses. Without the losses she owed the IRS a lot of money. And she owed a big penalty.

 My Take:  I have had a real estate pro audit before, and the IRS challenged the logs directly. I was younger and working under a partner at another firm. In that case, I felt that the examining agent and supervisor were being unreasonable. The client had maintained but had not assembled the data into a usable, calendar form.  The agent felt that fact impugned the log, whereas my argument was that the log was little more than an administrative compilation of existing data. The agent disallowed pro status, the group manager sided with the agent, we appealed and won in Appeals. Quite a hassle – and we had better facts than Prang. For all that the client fired us. It did not go as smoothly as he would have liked. I wasn’t too thrilled about it either.

I try to be blunter with clients these days about the hazards of tax representation. Lose the examiner’s trust, for example, and you may not convince him/her that the sun came up this morning. Catch the examiner on a pet peeve and he/she may raise the body more often than a Living Dead episode. You may have an examiner too green to realize that classroom examples rarely occur outside the classroom. You may run into a coordinated exam, in which a specialized group – not necessarily the examiner – is calling the shots.  A lot can go wrong.

Was Prang an “aggressive assault” on real estate investors? I do not see it. What I do see is someone gaming the system. They got caught. That’s all.

Jun 20

Have you heard of cost segregation studies? This is an engineering-based study, usually conducted in tandem with an accounting firm, to break-out the cost of real estate and improvements into more tax-advantaged asset categories. For example, a sidewalk can be depreciated faster than a building. It would therefore be tax-advantageous to separate the cost of the sidewalk from that of the building and claim the faster depreciation. A virtual cottage industry has sprung up in the profession to do these cost segregation studies.

What if you buy a business and simultaneously do a cost segregation study? Sounds like the perfect time to do one. What if you buy a business and do the study later?

Let’s talk about Peco Foods Inc (Peco).

Peco is the parent of a consolidated group engaged in poultry processing. Through subsidiaries, Peco acquired its Sebastopol, Mississippi plant in 1995.  Peco and the seller agreed to allocate a $27,150,000 purchase price among 26 asset categories, including:

  • Processing plant building
  • Hatchery real property
  • Waste water treatment plant
  • Furniture and equipment
  • Machinery and equipment

Peco obtained an appraisal in connection with this acquisition. The appraisal listed more than 750 separate assets.

Peco acquired a second plant in Canton, Mississippi for $10,500,000 in 1998. This time Peco and the seller allocated the purchase price across only three asset categories:

  • Land
  • Land improvements
  • Machinery, equipment, furniture and fixtures

Peco obtained an appraisal on Canton after-the-fact. The appraisal included more than 300 separate assets. 

In 1999 Peco hired Moore Stephens Frost (MSF) for a cost segregation study of the two plants.  According to the study, Peco was entitled to additional depreciation expense of $5,258,754 from 1998 through 2002.

            NOTE: I will pass on saying that $5.2 million is not chicken feed.

Peco was now required to alert the IRS that it was changing its depreciation. It was changing what it earlier called a “building” to “machinery” or “equipment” or whatever. It had to attach a form – Form 3115 – to its tax return. Peco explained that it was breaking-out the Sebastopol and Canton depreciation schedules into more categories.

The IRS nixed the whole thing.

Why? There are special rules when someone acquires enough assets of another business to constitute the purchase of that business. This is referred to as an “applicable” asset acquisition, and the seller and buyer have to alert the IRS of how the purchase price is to be allocated. Here is Code Section 1060:

If in connection with an applicable asset acquisition, the transferee and transferor agree in writing as to the allocation of any consideration, or as to the fair market value of any of the assets, such agreement shall be binding on both the transferee and transferor unless the Secretary determines that such allocation (or fair market value) is not appropriate.

Each party’s argument is straightforward:

IRS:              Taxpayer has to allocate according to the acquisition agreement.

Peco:            No, I don’t because the wording is vague.          

The Court pointed out that the Sebastopol agreement used the phrase “processing plant building.” The inclusion of the word “building” was important. The Court even read the description of “building” from the Merriam Webster College Dictionary.  Equipment inside a building is not the same as the building. Why would Peco use the word “building” if it did not in fact mean a building?

The Court went through the same exercise with the Canton property.

The Court pointed out that – for it to set aside the written agreement – it would have to hold that the language was vague and ambiguous. Problem is, the Court did not think the language was vague or ambiguous at all. The Court observed that Peco had an appraisal prior to entering into one of the contracts, but it saw no need to further detail or reword its asset acquisition schedule. The second schedule was even more restrained, having only three categories. The Court observed that Peco did not seem to have any trouble with its schedules and categories until after it met Moore Stephens Frost (MSF), who clued them in on the advantages of cost segregation. The Court hinted its disapproval over retroactive tax planning, and it decided that it could not determine that the allocation was inappropriate. That meant that Peco was bound by the documents it signed. 

What is the moral of the story? The first of course is the importance of words in tax practice. Sometimes there is no room for “you know what I mean.” This is one of those areas.

The second moral is cynical. Had there been no written allocation of the assets, or even an incomplete allocation, then Peco might have won the case. Why? Because both sides would not have named every dollar in the deal. This would have left unclaimed ground, and Peco could have claimed that ground.

To be fair, the IRS is not keen on cost segregation. It is aware of the cottage industry that has sprung up after Hospital Corporation of America. It is one thing to be tracking the cost breakout as a building is being constructed or renovated. It is another to have an engineer come in and submit “what-if” numbers on an existing building or land improvement. Notice that the IRS did not contest the validity or credibility of MSF’s cost segregation study. All it did was hold Peco to its own (and) earlier cost allocation when it purchased the two businesses. That was enough.

Jun 15

Last Friday I had a meeting with an IRS Appeals officer downtown. Her name is Fran and I like her. I understand that she and I sit on opposite sides of the table, but she does and has done – in my opinion – a fair job balancing the interests of the government and taxpayers.

Fran is retiring this year. Presently there are two people in Cincinnati Appeals. This means that soon there will be one. There are a number of reasons for this, and one is the IRS budget.

I saw this morning that the Senate Appropriations Subcommittee on Financial Services and General Government has marked up an appropriations bill that would increase IRS funding by 6%.

Perhaps I have been at this too long, but I take this as good news. Doing this every day, I have seen the decline of IRS administration. We have talked previously of IRS brain drain and the difficulty of working with their green and inexperienced replacements. We have also pointed out the blizzard of CP notices, which process often doesn’t work well and results in large amounts of wasted taxpayer (and my) time. Trying to settle an issue with ACS sometimes feels like the search for a starting New York Jets quarterback.

IDEA: Don’t issue these notices unless there is enough money to justify the time.

Collections can also do a better job. We have clients who have been laid-off and are now working where they can, perhaps as independent contractors. This creates the problem of making less money but owing more tax. Many times what they do earn is unpredictable. They are uncomfortable agreeing to a fixed monthly payment plan because they do not have reliable cash flow. Collections has a difficult time with a variable payment plan – one fluctuating as one’s income fluctuates. We presently have two of these clients in CDP Appeals.

OBSERVATION: This further increases the workload of Appeals, which will soon be down to one person in Cincinnati.

One of my non-profits received an $8,000 penalty notice for filing their Form 990 untimely. They have reasonable cause, as their bookkeeper became very ill and passed away. The Board did not know what to do, and by the time it came to us the return was late. I feel comfortable that the penalty will be abated. However, does $8,000 – for a small charity – seem reasonable to you?

OBSERVATION: If the penalty is not abated, we will go to Appeals, which again will soon be down to one person in Cincinnati.

On the other hand, I recognize the downside of increased IRS funding. This means they can look at more taxpayers, and I pay taxes too. Hopefully some of it will go to improved staffing and more experienced personnel.

I wish you the best, Fran. Enjoy your retirement.

Jun 12

Here is one of my favorite tax quotes thus far in 2012:

That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

You can be sure that language isn’t going to make it to the firm’s brochure.

What happened? It started with compensation. There is a CPA firm in Illinois with three senior partners. These partners were making pretty good jack, enough so that they did not want the other partners to know the actual amounts. Considering that they are – you know, a CPA firm – that could be a tall order. So the three senior partners in turn started three other companies.

EXAMPLE: Let’s say you, me, and the guy in the elevator form three companies to hide our good fortunes from our partners. Let’s say company 1 paints and wallpapers CPA offices, company 2 shreds CPA firm files and company 3 provides door-to-door transportation to CPAs during busy season.  We will have our firm “pay” these companies for services and then we will split it up – behind the scenes, of course. Brilliant! What could go wrong?

The firm and tax case is Mulcahy, Pauritsch, Salvador & Co. They had approximately 40 employees and revenues between $5 and $7 million during the years at issue. The firm was organized as a C corporation. This technically made the partners “shareholders,” and the existence of a C corporation allowed for the possibility of dividends. The three shareholders had the following ownership:

                Edward Mulcahy                              26%

                Michael Pauritsch                            26%

                Philip Salvador                                 26%

For the years at issue they received W-2s as follows:                       

                                                              2001                       2002                       2003  

                Mulcahy                           106,175                 103,156                 102,662                    

                Pauritsch                            99,074                   96,376                   95,048                                    

                Salvador                           117,824                 106,376                 112,086

The firm paid consulting fees to the three companies of:  

                2001                                   911,570                

                2002                                   866,143

                2003                                   994,028  

The three companies then paid the three shareholders according to the hours each worked during the year.

The IRS comes in and asks the obvious question: what consulting services were provided?

Back to our example:                

                IRS:  Steve, how many paints and wallpapers did you do?

                Me:  Er, none.              

                IRS:  How many files did you shred?

                You: None.

                IRS:  How many transportation clients did you drive?

                Elevator guy: None.  

Truly folks, it does not require graduate school and years of study and practice in taxation to guess the IRS’ reaction. They disallowed the deduction and said that it was a disguised dividend to the three shareholders.

MPS is upset. If it is not consulting, they argue, then it is compensation.

The IRS says: please show us the W-2, the 1099, anything which indicates that this is compensation. MPS argues that it is “like” compensation. Heck, at the end-of-the-day the three companies paid the shareholders based on their hours worked. Doesn’t that sound like compensation? “Sounds like” is a childhood game, says the IRS, and is not recognized as sound tax planning. Surely MPS would know this, being a CPA firm and all.

MPS goes to Tax Court. MPS argues that its intent was to compensate, therefore the tax consequence should follow its intent. It brought in experts to prove that the shareholders were undercompensated, malnourished and in need of more sunshine. The Court listened to the argument, gave it weight and said the following:              

There is no evidence that the ‘consulting fees’ were compensation for the founding shareholders’ accounting and consulting services. If they had been that—rather than appropriations of corporate income—why the need to conceal them?”

There is an important point here. There is a long-standing tax doctrine that you may select any form and structure you wish for a transaction, but once you do you are bound by that form and structure. The CPA firm was a C corporation and was transacting with its shareholders. A C corporation transacts in one of two ways with its shareholders: as compensation or as dividends/distributions. If the compensation was disallowed, you have the possibility of a dividend.

The Court did try to work with MPS. It noted that two tests for compensation are that (1) it must be reasonable and (2) it must be for services performed. This brought in the “independent investor test” of Exacto Spring, which precedent the Tax Court had used in the past. The idea is easy: what return would you need on your investment to pay someone a certain amount of compensation?

EXAMPLE: A hedge fund manager receives 20% of the fund’s capital gains. This is referred to as the “carry.” Why would an investor agree to this? What if the manager was returning 20% to 30% to you annually – even after deducting his/her 20%? Would you agree to this? Uh, yes.

So the Court looks at MPS’ taxable income for the years at issue:

                2001                                   11,249

                2002                                  (53,271)

                2003                                       -0-

The Court observed that the firm had money invested in its offices, technology, furniture, etc. It noted that – according to normal market expectations – that invested capital required a rate of return. It did not think that taxable income of zero was a reasonable rate of return. The Court was aware that the firm was zeroing-out its taxable income by paying consulting fees. This indicated to the Court that the firm was not concerned with a reasonable return on invested capital. MPS could not meet the Exacto standard. Without meeting that standard, the Court could not weave “compensation” out of “consulting fees” whole cloth. This was an unfortunate result because the firm received no deduction for dividends but the shareholders had to pay taxes on them. That is the double taxation trap of a C corporation. It is also a significant reason why many planners – including me – do not often use C corporations.

Let’s go tax nerd for a moment. I believe that MPS would have substantially prevailed had it deducted the payments as compensation (and included on the W-2) and the IRS in turn argued unreasonable compensation. Why? Because I believe the Court might have disallowed some of the compensation but permitted the rest. MPS instead came from the other direction: it had to argue that the payments were compensation rather than something else. This changed the dynamic, and it now became an all-or-nothing argument. MPS lost the argument and got nothing.

MPS appealed the case but with the same result. It is here that the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals gave us the quote:

That an accounting firm should so screw up its taxes is the most remarkable feature of the case.”

The taxes were almost $980,000. Remember, the personal service corporation lost its deduction (and paid taxes) and the shareholders received dividends (and paid taxes). The penalties alone exceeded $190,000.

MY TAKE: This tax strategy borders on the unforgivable. There were so many ways to sidestep this result.  One way would have been working with disregarded entities, also known as single-member LLCs. The three shareholders performed services for and received W-2s from the accounting firm. The Court however did not agree that their three companies performed services for the accounting firm. A disregarded entity would have avoided that result by having the member’s activities attributed to the SMLLC.

How could the firm pay entities that provided no services? Was nobody in that tax department paying attention? I presume they were steamrolled by the three senior shareholders.

I was brought up with the technique of draining professional service corporation profit to zero by using year-end bonuses. That technique has frayed over recent years as new doctrines – such as Exacto Spring– have appeared. It is as though these MPS guys were stuck in a time warp.

Another way, and the obvious, would be to have just paid the founding partners more compensation. Yes, that would have given away the amount of actual compensation to the senior partners. Then again, this case has also given away that information.

Jun 07

Joseph Mohamed seems a good sort. He and his wife live in Sacramento, California. He is a successful real estate professional. In 1998 they formed the Joseph Mohamed Sr. and Shirley M. Mohamed Charitable Remainder Unitrust II. Tax pros call this a “CRUT.”

QUESTION: What is a CRUT? This is a special trust involving a charity. You can guess that a purpose of the trust is to make a charitable donation. In a CRUT, an annuity goes to the donor (in this case, Joseph and Shirley) for a period of years. At the expiration of that period, the remainder goes to a charity. In the Mohamed’s case, that period is twenty years. Why would you do that in place of simply donating twenty years out? Because the CRUT allows you to claim the charitable deduction now.

In 2003 and 2004 the Mohameds donated several properties to the CRUT. The properties were worth somewhere between $18 million and $21 million. Joseph Mohamed prepared his own taxes. This means he ran into Form 8283 to report the property donations. He did not read the instructions though, as he did not think he had to. The form seemed straightforward enough.

Form 8283 has several parts. Part 1 Section B required a description of the donated property and “can be completed by the taxpayer and/or appraiser.” It also had the following text:

“If your total art contribution deduction was $20,000 or more you must attach a complete copy of the signed appraisal. See instructions.”  

Mohamed was contributing real estate, not art. He read that to mean that he did not have to attach an appraisal. He did attach all types of statements and documentation to his return, including his own valuation of the real estate.

The return gets audited (who is shocked?). The IRS was displeased that Mohamed had self-valued such a large dollar donation of property. The IRS first goes after the valuation. Makes sense. Mohamed then gets an independent appraisal which shows that the properties are worth more than he claimed.

The IRS then pulls back and realizes something. Regulation 1.170A-13(c) requires the following for donations of this nature and amount:

  1. A qualified appraisal must be made not more than 60 days before the donation and no later than the due date of the return.
  2. It must be signed by a qualified appraiser, who cannot be the donor or person claiming the deduction.
  3. The qualified appraisal must contain defined information, such as a description of the property, its basis and fair market value.

Mohamed had a problem. You see, he did not have a qualified appraisal. That requires an independent appraiser, and he obtained that after the filing of his return. There was of course no signature, as there was no qualified appraisal. While he attached numerous statements to his return, they did not completely address the litany of questions that the IRS wanted in Reg 1.170A-13(c).

The IRS disallowed the donations. Mohamed goes to Tax Court and raises three arguments:

  1. The extreme result indicates that the Regulations are invalid.
  2. The IRS-designed Form 8283 misled him.
  3. He substantially complied with the documentation requirements.

The Court quickly dismissed arguments 1 and 2. It went through an analysis (which we will skip) and concluded that the Regulations were valid and reflected Congressional intent. The IRS, for example, was ordered by Congress to issue Regulations requiring appraisals for donations of property in excess of $5,000. A Regulation that implements Congressional intent is difficult to rule invalid. The Court was sympathetic to argument 2, but it pointed out that the form is not the tax law. The Court even added that “a taxpayer relies on his private interpretation of a tax form at his own risk.”

Now we get to argument 3. What does “substantially comply” mean? There was a previous case (Bond) where the Court found substantial compliance, but succeeding cases have ever compressed the reach of that decision. The Court determined that substantial compliance meant complying with the “essential requirement” of the statute. Problem is, the “essential requirement” of the statute is the need to obtain a qualified appraisal. With that verbal loop, there was no way that Mohamed could substantially comply.

Here is the Court:

We recognize that this result is harsh – a complete denial of charitable deductions to a couple that did not overvalue, and may well have undervalued, their contributions – all reported on forms that even to the Court’s eyes seemed likely to mislead someone who did not read the instructions.”

MY TAKE: I am sympathetic to the Mohameds, but I am also confused. They must have used a tax professional in the past to establish the CRUT. They then make a near-$20 million donation but do not hire a pro to walk it through? It doesn’t make sense to me.

In both Mohamed and Durden there was no question that contributions were made; there were also no question as to the amounts. The taxpayer may have felt comfortable thinking: what are they going to do, put me in jail? No, they won’t put you in jail, but they will take away your charitable deduction. Don’t think that a court will bail you out, as there may be limits to what a court can do.

What is the answer? I would encourage the use of a tax professional if there is even a whiff of a question on your return. I know – it costs money. The problem is that you may not know you have hit a slick spot until after the IRS contacts you. As Mohamed and Durden have shown, that may be too late.

Jun 04

Our next two blogs discuss tax fails involving charitable contributions.

What each has in common is congressional resolve to address an area considered subject to tax abuse. How so? How many times has someone overvalued a Goodwill clothing donation, for example? Congress therefore placed restrictions – primarily documentation requirements – on one’s ability to deduct contributions. The general tax rule is simple: no documentation equals no deduction.  The key is to understand what Congress considers documentation, as your understanding may be different from theirs.

Let’s talk about Durden.

David and Veronda Durden contributed $25,171 in 2007 to the Nevertheless Community Church. With the exception of five checks (totaling $317), all checks were over $250.

FIRST RULE: Under Code Section 170(f)(8)(A), no deduction is allowed for any contribution of $250 or more unless taxpayer has contemporaneous written acknowledgment of the contribution by the charity organization that meets specified requirements.

The Durdens cleared the first rule, as they had a letter from the church dated January 10, 2008.

SECOND RULE: Under Code Section 170(f)(8)(B), the charity must state in the acknowledgment whether it provided any goods or services as consideration for the contributed property or cash. If so, it must include a description and good faith estimate of the value of any goods or services provided.

There is a problem: the church did not include language “no goods and services have been provided” in their letter.

The Durdens obtained a second letter dated June 21, 2009 containing the same information found in the first letter, plus a statement that no goods or services were provided in exchange for the contributions.

THIRD RULE: Code Section 170(f)(8)(C) considers the acknowledgment as contemporaneous if obtained on or before the earlier when the tax return is due or the actual filing date.

The IRS disallowed all but $317 of the charitable deduction for insufficient documentation. The Durdens go to Tax Court. Their argument is reasonable: we substantially complied with the spirit of the law. We had a letter. It might not be exactly the letter the IRS wanted, but we had a letter. When the IRS wanted more, we got them more. The IRS went too far in disallowing the deduction when everyone knows we gave to the church. We even showed them cancelled checks.  The wording in Code Section 170(f)(8)(C) is only one way – a safe harbor maybe – of meeting the “contemporaneous” standard.

The Tax Court disagreed. It noted that Congress intended to tighten the rules in this area and placed specific language in the Code requiring and defining “contemporaneous.” This was not the IRS’ doing; it was Congress’ doing.  The Court in the past had been lenient in cases involving substantial procedural compliance. This was not procedure. This was legislative compliance, and the matter was outside the Court’s hands.

The Durdens did not have the correct letter when they filed their return. That is the last possible date according to the law. There is no deduction. The Court did let them deduct $317, however. Since those individual contributions were under $250, those didn’t require a letter.

MY TAKE: I can understand Congress passing near-incomprehensible tax law to address complex and sophisticated tax issues. Those taxpayers are likely to have expert tax advisors and planners. This is not one of those issues. This is someone donating to a church. I strongly disapprove of routine activities triggering tax rules that make no sense to an average person.  

Congress should have included a “sanity” clause in this statute. They could have given the IRS discretion to accept “other but equal” documentation. True, the IRS could refuse to do so, but at least there would be a chance that the IRS – or a court reviewing the IRS – could blunt the capriciously sharp edge of this tax law.

Next time we will talk about Mohamed.

May 31

Let’s say that you were born in Brazil. Your family was wealthy. Due to safety concerns (such as the risk of kidnapping), they moved you to the United States when you were young. You grew up in a southern and international city – perhaps Miami. You went to Harvard. While there you met and bankrolled a cantankerous near-friendless computer genius who came up with the next great social media idea. He tried to boot you out of the fledging company, but after a lawsuit and hard feelings, you kept about 4% or so of the shares. Much to your delight, the company went recently went public and made you a multibillionaire. Prior to that, you met with high-powered attorneys and tax advisors. You renounced your U.S. citizenship and are now living in Singapore. Where is Singapore? Think Vietnam, and then turn south. It is a former British colony, and you like pasties and room-temperature beer. Seems a fit.

Why would you do this?

Let’s go over several tax reasons. We need numbers in this conversation. Let’s use the following:

            Proceeds from IPO                             $ 4.0 billion

            Expected annual salary                    $ 7.5 million

            Expected annual dividends             $ 40 million

            Expected capital gains                      $ 25 million

What are your U.S. 2013 taxes if you remain a U.S. citizen?

(1)   Your salary may be taxed as high as 39.6% next year. Let’s say that it will be. The federal tax would be $7,500,000 times 39.6% equals $2,970,000.

(2)   If your dividends are “qualified” dividends, you would pay a 15% tax rate this year. The President’s proposed 2013 budget would increase this to 39.6%. In previous budgets, however, he has proposed 20%. What rate should we use? Let’s use 20%.  Your tax would be $ 40,000,000 times 20% equals $8,000,000.

(3)   The capital gains are a wild card. Let’s say that you will be selling stock periodically to fund your lifestyle. What amount? Let’s say $25 million annually. Let’s also say that your basis is so low that any sale is virtually all gain. The long-term capital gains rate is currently 15%, but everyone expects this rate to go up. Unless Congress acts, the rate will increase to 20% in 2013. Let’s use 20%. Your tax would be $5,000,000.

(4)   Starting in 2013, there is a new surtax on investment income if your income exceeds either $200,000 or $250,000, depending on filing status. You have clearly blown past that speed bump like Steven Tyler’s new Hennessey Venom GT Spyder. That new tax is 2.9% and will cost you $1,885,000.

(5)   Starting in 2013, there is a Medicare surcharge for persons earning more than $200,000. The surcharge is 0.9% and will cost you $67,500.

 What are your 2013 taxes in Singapore?

(1) The top tax rate in Singapore is 20%. Taxes on your salary will be $1,500,000.

(2) Taxes on your dividends will be $8,000,000.

(3)There are no taxes on your capital gains.

 OK, let’s look at the scorecard. A quick back-of-the-envelope calculation shows:

            United States             $17,922,500   

            Singapore                    $  9,500,000

 Is there more? Well, yes.

 (1) Let’s say that you invested in mutual funds to obtain those dividends. Chances are these funds will be considered PFIC’s (“pea-fics”) and carry some heavy U.S. tax disapproval.

 The best you can do with a PFIC is make a QEF election and pay taxes every year on your share of income, whether distributed to you or not. This requires the PFIC manager to want to go to the trouble of assembling this information for you, as the PFIC tax is an American concept. A fund manager in Hong Kong, for example, might be less than interested in IRS mandates. In any event, the U.S. wants to accelerate your tax without regard to whether you received any cash.

If the fund manager is unwilling, you go to an ugly place in U.S. taxation. Without belaboring this, it may require you to go back and recalculate your prior year taxes on an “as if” basis. You will then write a real check to the IRS for that “as if” calculation. You also have to pay the IRS interest for not having paid taxes in the earlier “as if” tax year.

 (2) Don’t forget your FBAR filing every June 30.

You have financial accounts overseas, so you will have an FBAR filing.

Penalties for failure to file an FBAR border can be severe. Penalties begin at $10,000 for each non-willful violation. If willful, the penalty goes to the greater of $100,000 or 50% of the account for each violation. Oh, each year is considered a separate violation. And the IRS gets to decide what is willful.

 You got it: if the IRS considers your violation to be willful for two years, you have wiped-out the account.

 (3)   You have to file the new Form 8938 disclosing foreign financial assets.

This is the FATCA and its reason for existing reads like a bad dream. In essence, the IRS felt that it was not getting enough information from the FBAR, and it really wanted more information.

Think about this. The FBAR is mailed to the U.S. Treasury, and technically the IRS is part of the U.S. Treasury. One would think that the IRS and Treasury would speak, perhaps weekly for breakfast. Treasury did not upgrade the FBAR, nor did it replace the FBAR with the IRS Form 8938. No sir, the IRS created a new form and they kept both filing requirements. Well, it is one more opportunity to confuse the populace and maximize those penalty dollars. Brilliant!

Penalties can be rough: $10,000 for each failure to file. If you both fail to file the 8938 and fail to pay tax on the foreign income, there is a super-penalty of 40% on the tax underpayment. Don’t do that.

 (4)   Should you leave family behind, gifting to them will certainly be a problem. These transfers will be picked up under the expatriation rules of Section 877 and trigger tax at the maximum gift tax rate. That rate is currently 35% but is expected to increase to 55% next year.

You read that right: Uncle Sam is your biggest beneficiary. More so than your mom, son or daughter. 

You may want to take them with you.  Singapore has no gift tax.

 (5)   Should you remain a U.S. citizen, consider hiring an experienced tax attorney and/or CPA to navigate all this. It is another expense, but least you can write-off the professional fees on your taxes. Oh, wait. No you can’t. Chances are the fees will not exceed 2% of your income. If you are in the AMT, they will not be deductible in any event.

There are reasons other than taxation to renounce. There are many expatriates overseas who have no intention of returning to the U.S. They have lives, spouses, children, jobs and friends there. Perhaps they will return, but it will be at some unknown and distant date.

It is unfortunate to renounce citizenship over tax reasons. The U.S. does press your hand by taxing you on your worldwide income, irrespective of where you live, work or maintain family. The U.S. is virtually alone in the world with this type of taxation. If this ever made sense, does it still make sense? Leaving the U.S. doesn’t mean that you leave its mandates. You have to renounce.

What would you do?