Monday, March 12, 2012
Finding this commercial on the internet either is impossible or is a task beyond my skill set. In the process of searching for the commercial, I came across a web site that, for all I know, could be the source of the ad writer’s claim. According to this article by an unnamed contributor, it is possible to avoid sales taxes by following these instructions:
1. Find out how to avoid paying sales tax. Nearly all states do not have sales tax on items purchsed [sic] via the internet when the company you are buying from does not have a physically presence in that state. For instance, items purchased from Amazon.com or Blue Nile have no sales tax because they do not have a physical store in the states they are selling.Though technically these are ways to avoid the sales tax, they are not ways of avoiding the use tax. The same article then offers some “tips and warnings” for its readers: Among the tips are two that are no less oblivious to reality as is the failure to mention the use tax. Readers are told that “This works best with small items that are expensive, i.e. use this for wedding rings but not for cars!” It doesn’t work at all for cars, because when it’s time to register the vehicle, proof that the sales tax has been paid will be requested, and if it is not produced, especially if title is being transferred from out-of-state, a use tax will be imposed. Readers are also told, “The IRS may still hold you liable for tax even if the company did not charge you, check with your accountant.” The only good advice is the suggestion that a phone call be made to, or an email sent to, an accountant, though other tax professionals also can be helpful. The IRS is not going to impose a sales tax with respect to the purchase, and the making of the purchase will not generate gross income for the purchaser.
2. If you do not want to buy over the internet, then you can also find a regular brick and mortar store (while you are travelling out of state) that doesn't have a presence in your home state. For example, if you buy a sweet new Rolex in Tourneau in New York and have the store ship it to to your home in Colorado (where the is not a Tournea), you pay no sales tax.
3. Finally you can buy the item in a state that doesn't have any sales tax to begin with and bring it home with you. States that do not have sales tax are: Alaska, Delaware, Hawaii, Montana, New Hampshire, New Mexico, and Oregon.
I explained the use tax in, among other posts, Tax: Perspective Matters. That post was yet another in the long series of commentaries on tax ignorance, including Tax Ignorance, Is Tax Ignorance Contagious?, Fighting Tax Ignorance, Why the Nation Needs Tax Education, Tax Ignorance: Legislators and Lobbyists, Tax Education is Not Just For Tax Professionals, The Consequences of Tax Education Deficiency, The Value of Tax Education, Tax Ignorance of the Historical Kind, Is It Any (Tax) Wonder?, and Tax Myths, Tax Lies, and Tax Twisting. So here is another. It is frightening how much misinformation pollutes the nation. Genuinely alarming.
Friday, March 09, 2012
According to the indictment, a former Philadelphia Eagles player allegedly joined up with two other people to file false federal income tax returns on which huge refunds were claimed. Freddie Mitchell, famous in Philadelphia sports lore for his outspokenness and his “fourth-and-twenty-six” catch, faces charges for targeting a professional athlete – identified only by the initials A.G. – as an unsuspecting avenue for a purported scheme of filing false tax returns in order to obtain unjustified refunds. Mitchell also has been charged with recruiting other professional athletes for the same purpose and with filing false tax returns for his company, Chameleon Enterprises.
Mitchell and the other two named in the indictment approached the professional athlete and persuaded him to retain them to do his tax return. They then doctored the return, to which they attached false Forms W-2 and false Schedules C showing losses, to generate a $1.9 million refund. They allegedly prepared five other false Forms 1040, but the indictment does not provide much in the way of details. They also prepared false returns for Mitchell’s company. Eventually the three defendants ended up with several million dollars of false refunds.
On top of all of this, Mitchell took a $100,000 down payment for tax return preparation. Was that not a red flag to the professional athlete? I’m confident that the tax return preparation fees paid by huge corporations with complex transactions, including international transactions, can run into the millions, but for an individual, even an individual with an array of investments and activities, a six-digit tax return preparation fee is orders of magnitude beyond what one would expect. According to the indictment, the fee charged by the three indicted individuals was computed as a percentage of the refund.
Perhaps what alerted the IRS to the scheme was the Form 8888 filed by the defendants. It requested that the $1.9 million refund be split three ways, with $638,288 being deposited into a joint account owned by the other two individuals and $280,000 being deposited into an account owned by Freddie Mitchell.
Red flags are everywhere. Ought not the education system teach every person that a tax return preparation fee based on the size of the refund is a warning sign that the preparer has incentive to jack up the refund, and that the temptation to falsify information in order to do so looms large? According to the indictment, A.G. did not know that his returns were doctored to generate huge refunds. I doubt A.G. looked at his returns, I doubt A.G. recognized the dangers of tax return preparation fees based on refund sizes, and I doubt that had A.G. looked at his returns that he would have noticed the disconnect between what was on those returns and reality. I also doubt that A.G. realized that a $918,000 tax return preparation fee is way out of line for an individual return. Way out of line. It’s too bad A.G. did not learn, somewhere along the line, about this aspect of the practicalities of life.
Wednesday, March 07, 2012
Soon after they opened Café Savannah, the taxpayer and Vargas had some sort of falling out. Almost five years later, Vargas changed the locks, refused to communicate with the taxpayer, and ignored the taxpayer’s request for records of the business. The taxpayer retained an attorney, but it was not until 2011 that he managed to get access to the restaurant’s records.
For the restaurant’s taxable years 2003 through 2006, the taxpayer received Schedules K-1 that showed losses. The taxpayer did not receive any distributions. In the spring of 2008, the taxpayer received a Schedule K-1 that reported $22,544 as his distributive share of the restaurant’s income. The taxpayer retained an accountant to prepare his 2007 federal income tax return. The accountant listed Café Savannah on the taxpayer’s Schedule E as a partnership in which the taxpayer held an interest, but did not report any of the $22,544 shown on the Schedule K-1 from Café Savannah.
The Tax Court held that the taxpayer was required to report the income from the restaurant. The court pointed out that a partner’s distributive share of partnership income is taxed even if it is not distributed. This is one of the reasons I stress to students in my Partnership Taxation class that the term “distributive share” and the word “distribution” are different, have different meanings, and ought not be used interchangeably. The court also explained that the outcome does not change even if the reason for a partner not receiving a distribution is the wrong-doing of a partner.
The only good news for the taxpayer came when the Tax Court rejected the IRS attempt to impose on the taxpayer the accuracy-related penalty. The court concluded that even though there was a substantial understatement of income on the taxpayer’s return, there was reasonable cause for the understatement and the taxpayer had acted in good faith. What apparently impressed the court was the taxpayer’s attempt to determine if the Schedule K-1 was incorrect because unlike the previous ones it showed income, the taxpayer’s attempts to contact Vargas and obtain the restaurant’s records, the taxpayer’s retention of an attorney in an attempt to obtain the records, and the taxpayer’s retention of an accountant to prepare his tax return.
The taxpayer’s tale is an unfortunate one. He gives up a job as general manager at a restaurant to go into business with someone, and it doesn’t work out. His business partner locks him out of the restaurant and blocks his efforts to see the business records until compelled by a court order four years later. The taxpayer retains an accountant who doesn’t include on the tax return the amount shown on the Schedule K-1, an action that is almost guaranteed to get a reaction from the IRS. The taxpayer owes tax on a distributive share of income that, at least as far as the Tax Court opinion explains, the taxpayer has not received. On top of that, the taxpayer also has some interest to pay. About the only bright spot in the story is the taxpayer’s escape from the accuracy-related penalty.
It’s not unusual for tax troubles to pile on top of other difficulties. It happens in divorces, it happens in bankruptcies, it happens in employment terminations, it happens in some personal injury situations. Some of these events are unavoidable, but often what turns out in hindsight to have been a bad decision in terms of relationship, business, or other activity ends up being doubly bad because of the tax consequences. Good planning might help, and good planning includes considering the tax consequences that follow from a bad decision. In analyzing the risk of a decision turning out badly, the tax consequences deserve to be part of the mix.
Monday, March 05, 2012
Those are but a few examples of what most revenue departments now consider essential to their responsibility of collecting taxes. There are at least three reasons for making this information public. First, it probably makes it a bit easier for revenue officials to track down delinquent taxpayers. Second, the public, especially compliant taxpayers, has a right to know. Third, a person whose name appears on a list ought to be, and sometimes is, shamed into compliance.
We live in an age when shame does not have the effect it once did. Yet tax officials explain that the published lists have had a positive effect on their tax collection efforts. And apparently the effect was enough to inspire a newly elected member of Philadelphia’s city council to publish a “bad neighbor map.” According to this KYW report, the map identifies property owners in Philadelphia – or at least in his district – who have let their properties become nuisances, afflicted with multiple license and inspection violations. According to a more recent report, the site has gained national attention, and ended up crashing from an overload of visitors. I can believe that, as every time I visit the site, it gets stuck loading the property markers.
Were I to have been asked, before seeing the results, whether publishing the names of delinquent taxpayers and noncompliant property owners would have any significant effect on triggering compliance, I would have said no. More and more people don’t care, and don’t care about being highlighted as an offender, perhaps because they think that the consequences are slight and the odds of having to deal with consequences are in their favor. Some people are so hungry for attention that they are tempted to violate laws because of the ensuing mainstream and social media coverage.
But I would have been wrong. Apparently there are enough people who prefer not to be highlighted as a tax scofflaw or as an owner of derelict property to make these sorts of lists work. So my easy prediction is that we will see more of them, not only with respect to unpaid taxes and poorly maintained properties, but also with respect to other sorts of violations.
Friday, March 02, 2012
The American Moustache Institute claims to be lobbying for what it calls the STACHE Act, an acronym for Stimulus to Allow Critical Hair Expenses. According to the Institute’s explanation, the proposed legislation “would provide up to a $250.00 annual tax refund for Mustached Americans.” In another paragraph on the same page, however, the Institute quotes an advocate of the proposal, who claims that “Given the clear link between the growing and maintenance of mustaches and incremental income … mustache maintenance costs qualify for and should be considered as a deductible expense.” $250 refund? $250 refundable credit? $250 deduction?
The obvious confusion about what it is that the Institute seeks, coupled with the claim that “All Americans are invited to participate in perhaps the most important movement in the history of movements – to help ensure for the fair taxation of Mustached Americans,” is what gives me hope that this is some sort of hoax.
The proposal is based on a “celebrated white paper” by a “noted tax policy professor” named Dr. John Yeutter, an “Associate Professor of Accounting and Tax Policy at Northeastern State University.” The paper, titled “Mustached Americans and The Triple Bottom Line,” does exist. There’s no publication date on the paper, though “2011” appears in the URL. However, in searching for the paper, I came across a Huffington Post article from 2010 that described the paper and a similar tax proposal. And just the other day it surfaced on CNN.
Though at one level the paper reads like a serious proposal, at another level it is downright off-the-wall and absurd. Consider the items that would be deductible: “Mustache and beard trimming instruments, mustache wax and weightless conditioning agents, Facial hair coloring products (for men and women over 43 years of age), bacon, mustache combs and mirrors, DVD collections of “Magnum P.I.” and “Smokey & The Bandit,” mustache insurance (now required by state law in Alabama, Oregon, Maine, and New Mexico, and Puerto Rico), billy clubs or bodyguards to keep women away as a mustache increases good looks by an estimated 38 percent, little black books and jumbo packages of kielbasa sausage, Burt Reynolds wallet-sized photos.” To me it appears that the paper is poking fun at the long line of lobbyists who arrive on Capitol Hill with a long list of why their clients’ pet project is deserving of federal financing through tax expenditures.
If, as I think, the paper and the proposal are satire, their authors have done a fine job of highlighting the flaws of the tax policy process as it now exists. If, on the other hand, the proposal is serious, then the nation is in worse trouble than I thought. And if it is a serious proposal, perhaps I will start a movement for the deduction of all expenditures, favoring neither the bald nor the hirsute, the bearded nor the clean-shaven, the somber nor the jocular, the poor nor the rich, the educated nor the ignorant, male or female, old or young, or anyone else. Everybody deducts everything, and at that point lobbyists for deductions are out of business. Then perhaps I will turn to exclusions and credits. All income is excluded, and everyone gets whatever tax credit they want. As part of the deal I’ll throw in provisions that outlaw traffic lights and stop signs. Everybody’s special, and no one deserves to be hindered from doing what they want to do at an intersection. Sorry for the cutting sarcasm, and for working up a lather, but it’s time to shave and trim the narrowly tailored special interest provisions in the tax law. I’ll let the readers do their part and comb through them on their own.
Wednesday, February 29, 2012
The simple upshot of this can be summed up thusly: The IRS DOES NOT ENACT INTERNAL REVENUE CODE SECTIONS. It is the CONGRESS that enacts Internal Revenue Code sections. That’s very basic stuff. Extremely basic stuff. Understandably, many of the propaganda ministries have a not-so-hidden agenda of trying to persuade people that it’s the IRS that generates the tax laws, as part of the effort to discredit the IRS and taxes generally. But tax professionals know, or at least should know, better. Every semester, for the first out-of-class graded exercise in the basic tax class, I search the internet for the latest version of the “IRS enacts Code sections” myth, present it to the students, and ask them to comment on the statement. This helps me identify which students have been paying attention, and aside from driving home the point that paying attention matters, gives students the opportunity to engage in remedial education. For some reason, although all Americans over the age of, say, fourteen, should understand that statutes are enacted by legislatures, the teaching of what was once the ubiquitous Civics course has been shelved in most school districts. Answering the question why is a matter for another post. Perhaps something about an uneducated electorate being less likely to throw out incumbent legislators, especially the ones that try to blame others for the laws they enact. Consider, for example, the situation I explored in If Congress Says So, Don’t Blame the IRS (“So long as people view the IRS as the source of all that is wrong with taxation and the tax system, or the cause of anything they dislike about tax law and tax enforcement, and overlook the responsibility of the Congress for the tax law, tax policy, and tax administration deficiencies afflicting the nation, the problems will not be solved.”)
Similar misusages of precision terminology abound in articles, discussion board postings, student exam responses, newspapers, and all other sorts of communication media. Too often, one sees sentences such as "The IRS held that . . . "
The precise terminology is as follows. The Congress enacts statutes. The Treasury Department promulgates regulations. The Tax Court holds that one or another outcome is the appropriate result. The IRS rules or concludes or advises that its position is one thing or another; it does not hold. Courts issue opinions, the IRS issues rulings, the Treasury Department issues regulations, the courts explain things, the IRS explains things, the Treasury Department explains things.
One of the things that might contribute to the imprecise transposition of terminology that has negative effects is the message that I received years ago in an English literature class. It is a message that I think is being repeated throughout the years and throughout education systems. I was told, “Aside from common words such as articles and prepositions, don’t use the same word more than once, especially on the same page. Buy a thesaurus.” That might be good advice for a novelist or poet, but it is atrocious advice for those who write in technical areas. Lawyers, engineers, physicians, scientists, actuaries, accountants, and those in other technically-focused professions can create confusing and even dangerous if not fatal errors when they use different words to mean the same thing. If the word “basis” must appear several hundred times in a tax article, so be it. Using “capital account” instead of basis “just to change things up” in the style of the fiction writers is ill-advised.
Almost four years ago, in Is Tax Ignorance Contagious?, which addressed a woeful reference to a so-called but non-existing “Tax Code 63-20,” I wrote:
It is not uncommon for law students to conflate legislation, regulations, and rulings. When I insist they demonstrate understanding, and push aside ignorance, some of them have argued that my call for precision is unwarranted, and that what they have done is acceptable. My rejection of imprecision, by students and by others, at times has been derided as picky or worse. But I usually quiet the complaints by asking if people want neurosurgeons operating on them, their children, or their parents to be imprecise. I wonder if people want engineers building bridges to be imprecise. I ask whether the folks making pet food, medicines, and other products should be imprecise. Perhaps speech references aren't as life-and-death as neurosurgery, bridge building, food manufacturing, or pharmaceutical formulation, but when dealing with billions of taxpayer dollars, precision is no less a sign of the care and attention to detail that should be demanded of public officials. If public officials are going to talk about taxes, they should make certain they know what they're discussing and take steps to make their words correct and precise.At least some public officials can claim that they did not attend law school or any other educational institution that gave them the opportunity to learn something about precise language, but certainly those who are writing about tax in professional tax journals owe it to their readers to learn the language of tax and to use it properly.
Monday, February 27, 2012
The other morning, as I walked in, one of my friends pointed to another person and said, “He has a tax question for you.” I turned, and was asked, “Is there a deadline for when people must send you the forms you need to do your tax return, like W-2s and 1099s.” Indeed there is. I pointed out that January 31 is the deadline for employers to mail W-2 forms and payors to mail 1099 forms, which means that some people won’t received these until early February. However, I noted, if an individual is a shareholder in an S corporation, the K-1 reporting the person’s share of S corporation items isn’t required to be sent until March 15, and that’s if the corporation does not file an extension. If the individual is a partner is a partnership or owns an interest in a limited liability company taxed as a partnership, the K-1 isn’t required to be sent until April 15, and, again, that’s without regard to any extension. The person who had asked the question commented, “Then these people are probably filing extensions.” Yes, they are. At that point, I could not resist the tendencies of law professors to pose hypothetical situations. “What if,” I asked, “the partnership is a partner in another partnership,” and as the person’s eyes widened, I added, “and that partnership is a partner in another partnership?” As my friend began to roll his eyes, I added, “and you can toss in some controlled foreign corporations for fun, too.”
As the conversation continued, I pointed out that the income tax rests on a set of theoretical notions that made sense when the world was much less complex than it is today. In the early and middle part of the last century, very few individuals were partners in partnerships that were partners in other partnerships, let alone in partnerships that were partners in partnerships that were partners in partnerships that were partners in partnerships, and so on. The inefficiencies of the current filing system are an inescapable product of the combination of an income tax with multi-layer business and investment structures. When making a list of arguments for and against some other sort of tax, these inefficiencies show up in the column holding the disadvantages of an income tax.
Years ago, a member of Congress introduced legislation that would require individuals to file their income tax returns on their birthdays. It was quite some time ago and I cannot find the legislation, and I don’t recall the specifics. For example, I don’t recall if special provisions existed for people whose birthdays would fall on a national holiday. In any event, imagine the challenges of implementing this absurd proposal. A person born on January 2 would not have the requisite information, unless the person were permitted to file on January 2 of the following year. The disadvantages of that delay include postponed government revenue and taxpayers even less likely to remember the details of transactions undertaken more than a year earlier.
Most of the timing problems illustrated by the partnership and S corporation examples arise from the flow-through taxation principles that apply to those entities. Perhaps it is time to rethink how those entities and their owners are taxed.
Friday, February 24, 2012
State Senator Mary Jo White added, “When you now collect a tax that has never been collected before, the public perception is that it’s a new tax.” I agree. If an existing tax is not on someone’s radar, its appearance will cause the person to think that a new tax has been enacted. Public understanding of the use tax is woefully inadequate. Readers of MauledAgain know that eliminating tax ignorance is one of my goals, as demonstrated by my many posts on the issue, including Tax Ignorance, Is Tax Ignorance Contagious?, Fighting Tax Ignorance, Why the Nation Needs Tax Education, Tax Ignorance: Legislators and Lobbyists, Tax Education is Not Just For Tax Professionals, The Consequences of Tax Education Deficiency, The Value of Tax Education, Tax Ignorance of the Historical Kind, Is It Any (Tax) Wonder?, and Tax Myths, Tax Lies, and Tax Twisting).
Most Pennsylvanians living in the counties near the state of Delaware know that if they go to Delaware to make a purchase, they don’t pay sales tax, and that if they made the purchase in Pennsylvania they would pay the sales tax. What most Pennsylvanians making these “Delaware shopping trips” apparently don’t know is that under long-existing Pennsylvania law, they owe use tax on those purchases. The use tax simply is a substitute for the sales tax, to be applied to out-of-state purchases of items brought back to the state. Use tax compliance is so low that states try to find ways to compel out-of-state retailers to collect sales tax on the state’s behalf, even when there is little or no connection between the state and the nonresident retailer. A few years ago, several states began experimenting with putting a use tax line on their income tax returns, and other states, including Pennsylvania, have followed suit. Will it work? In a sense, it’s a no-lose proposition for the state. Adding a line to the return costs almost nothing. Even if the state collects only a small fraction of what is owed, the state is collecting more than it would in the absence of the change to the income tax return.
The income tax return solution for the use tax problem is insufficient. What is necessary is public education about the use tax. Why do Pennsylvanians, or residents of any state with a sales and use tax, for that matter, not know that the use tax exists? The answer is simple. No one has told them. How difficult would it be to include in the curriculum of the K-12 system an hour or two to explain state taxes in general, including the use tax? Most middle and high school students, if not all of them, understand the sales tax. Even some elementary school students have learned that saving one dollar to purchase a 99-cent item isn’t enough. I learned that when I was very young. It’s not rocket science, at least until an inquisitive child asks the dreaded question, “How do we know which items are subject to the sales tax and which aren’t?” Things have changed since the days of my youth, because now a student can be told to “look it up,” presumably on the internet, without worrying that the child would get lost in the library looking for statutes.
It will be interesting to watch what happens as increasing numbers of Pennsylvanians become aware of the use tax line on the income tax return. It’s an easy guess that there will be griping. What will hold my attention is the wait to see if some politician tries to benefit from this development by making loud noises about the “newly enacted tax.” After all, there’s nothing that says politicians are smarter about taxes than are people generally.
Wednesday, February 22, 2012
The original payroll tax cut, for 2011, was enacted by section 601 of P.L. 111-312, The Tax Relief, Unemployment Insurance Reauthorization, and Job Creation Act of 2010. The reduction applied during the “payroll tax holiday period,” in turn defined as calendar year 2011. When the reduction was extended in December 2011 by section 101 of P.L. 112-78, The Temporary Payroll Tax Cut Continuation Act of 2011, the payroll tax holiday period was defined to be the “period beginning January 1, 2011, and ending February 29, 2012.” This was accomplished by having section 101 of P.L. 112-78 amend section 601 of P.L. 111-312. In addition, section 101 of P.L. 112-78 also amended section 601 of P.L. 111-312 to add a subsection (g) to section 601 that imposed the new tax previously described. The recently passed legislation, to be enacted when signed by the President, is called The Middle Class Tax Relief and Job Creation Act of 2012. It redefines the payroll tax holiday period to be “calendar years 2011 and 2012” and it repeals the new 2 percent tax.
Those who have been reading this post carefully will have noticed that nowhere have I mentioned the Internal Revenue Code or any of its provisions. That’s because none of the legislation changed anything in the Internal Revenue Code. I will repeat what I emphasized in How Politics Generates Tax Complexity. The payroll tax cut legislation “provides another example of a lesson I try to get across to the students in my basic tax class, namely, there is much statutory tax law that is NOT in the Internal Revenue Code.” When critics of tax law complexity point out “the size of the tax code,” they are understating the point they are trying to make. Assuming that the number of pages of statutory provisions is a good proxy for tax law complexity, and it is in some ways but isn’t in other ways, highlighting the length of the Internal Revenue Code understates the point. One needs to add in the uncodified legislation that has no less of an effect on tax law complexity. In some respects, the uncodified material adds disproportionately more to tax law complexity.
Monday, February 20, 2012
In a recent case, Johnson v. U.S., No. 8:98-cv-03050-WDQ (D. Md. Feb. 15, 2012), the court approved an installment payment arrangement proposed by the IRS for a taxpayer who owed roughly $2.5 million in unpaid taxes and accumulated interest. The taxpayer had objected, claiming that requiring him to make installment payments of his debt would be a hardship. The taxpayer did not dispute the existence of the debt, which arose from the taxpayer’s failure as responsible person to cause his corporation to pay employment and withholding taxes.
The taxpayer’s evidence showed that he had annual income of almost $64,000. It was in the form of payments from his corporation to the lessor of his family’s home. The taxpayer arranged to take income in this manner because it is not subject to garnishment. In addition, the corporation paid his wife, who is not liable on the debt, a salary of between $130,000 and $140,000. The corporation’s salary decisions were made by taxpayer as president. The taxpayer resided in a home with his wife, adult son, niece, and sister-in-law. No information was provided with respect to the income of, or contribution to household expenses by, the other three, aside from the taxpayer’s explanation that he supported his adult son who has Asperger’s syndrome.
The taxpayer argued that the amount requested by the IRS “would impose an undue hardship on [the taxpayer], and by extension, his wife and children.” He also argued that the amount requested by the IRS was unreasonable, but did not offer an alternative amount.
So how much was the IRS requesting the taxpayer remit under its proposed installment agreement? It was $400 a month. That amount is 7.5 percent of the taxpayer’s income, and 2.35 percent of the combined income the taxpayer and his wife were pulling out of the corporation. The court, not surprisingly, held for the IRS. The court noted that the taxpayer’s adult son is not the taxpayer’s dependent alone, that the taxpayer is not supporting anyone other than paying rent on the home, that the annual salary of the taxpayer’s wife is double the taxpayer’s income even though she works substantially fewer hours than does the taxpayer, that the taxpayer controls how the corporation’s money is paid out in salaries, and that the intent of the installment payment provisions cannot be circumvented by the structure the taxpayer adopted for compensation.
I agree with the taxpayer that the amount requested by the IRS was unreasonable. It was unreasonably low. The court, however, could do nothing more than approve the IRS request. I tried to use a loan amortization calculator to determine how many years would be required to repay the $2.5 million debt if the monthly payment is $400, using a 5 percent interest rate. The calculator replied: “Error: The loan cannot be repaid using the parameters that you provided, probably because the Payment Amount is not sufficient to cover the periodic interest that is due. Try increasing the Payment Amount, or perhaps increase the Balloon Payment.” It did, however, permit me to make the computation using a zero percent interest rate. It would take 521 years. Even at a 1 percent rate of interest, the loan would grow despite the $400 monthly payments. At 1 percent, annual interest, ignoring compounding, is $25,000. At 5 percent, the annual interest would be $125,000. Annual payments of $4,800 aren’t going to make a dent. The loan would continue to grow. It would grow infinitely. It would exist eternally.
Of course, someone else is paying off this taxpayer’s debt. Either other taxpayers are paying higher taxes to make up the difference, or the budget deficit is growing because of the unpaid debt, shifting the burden to whomever it is that ultimately pays the deficit. Surely, there are five-person families who know how to live on far less than the taxpayer and his wife are making. Surely there are households of five who manage to provide themselves with housing for less than $64,000 a year. Why the IRS did not push for something more realistic, along the lines of $2,000 a month, puzzles me. I wonder how many other eternal tax installment payments are on the books. What does not puzzle me is why this taxpayer had the audacity to complain about a meager $400 monthly payment. The answer to that one is easy. Very easy.
Friday, February 17, 2012
The question was posed as follows. The questioner took the position that if a person rents a vacation home to six different tenants of one week each, there are 42 days of rental use. Those with whom he was having the discussion claimed that when the tenant arrives on a Saturday and leaves the following Saturday, there are 8 days of use because there are two Saturdays and one day of each of the other days of the week. The questioner pointed out that this sort of counting would cause the six one-week rentals to be treated as 48 days of rental, which makes no sense to him.
Because treating six one-week rentals as 48 days of rental also makes no sense to me, I set out to ascertain whether there was any authority for counting days. I found the answer in Proposed Regulations section 1.280A-1(f), which provides:
For purposes of section 280A, this section, and section 1.280A-3, the term “day” means generally the 24-hour period for which a day's rental would be paid. Thus, a person using a dwelling unit from Saturday afternoon through the following Saturday morning would generally be treated as having used the unit for 7 days even though the person was on the premises on 8 calendar days.Thus, arriving on Saturday afternoon February 11 and leaving on Saturday morning February 18 would be 7 days of use: the 24-hour period ending on February 12, the 24-hour period ending on February 13, and so on through the 14th, the 15th, the 16th, the 17th, and the 18th. That's 7 days, even though use exists on eight calendar days.
As I thought about the initial question, I understood the goal of the regulatory rule is to prevent double counting days, whether days of personal use or days of rental. Technically, though, double counting is possible under the regulations but a reasonable interpretation should avoid the pitfalls of a rigid application of the language. Consider an example. Renter1 signs a lease to occupy the dwelling unit from Saturday, February 11, 10 a.m. until Saturday, February 18, 9 a.m. This counts as a seven days of rental under the proposed regulation. Suppose that an emergency delays renter1’s departure until 2 p.m. on February 18, but that renter2, who has a lease for February 18, 10 a.m. until February 25, 9 a.m., is willing to, and does, accommodate renter1 by delaying occupancy. The best interpretation would be to treat each lease as 7 rental days. Though renter1 has continued occupancy into an eighth 24-hour period, it would not make sense to conclude that there are 15 days of rental, 8 from renter1 and 7 from renter2. Doing so would double-count Saturday, February 18.
So why would someone want to treat a one-week rental as 8 days, thus turning six one-week rentals into 48 rental days? The calculations for the deduction limitation reflect days of rental, and increasing the days of rental works to the taxpayer’s advantage. In this instance, with clear regulatory authority on how to count days, treating six one-week rentals as 48 rental days is flat-out wrong. And worse.
Wednesday, February 15, 2012
Just last week, in When Double Taxation Doesn’t Exist, I criticized the position taken in issue 9.04 of Tax Bytes, published by the Institute for Policy Innovation, with respect to whether the taxation of income earned by investing after-tax salary income constituted double taxation. Those reading my post carefully would have noticed that near the end, I expressed agreement with the position taken in the same issue 9.04 of Tax Bytes with respect to the ReadyReturn concept.
Shortly thereafter, I received issue 9.05 of Tax Bytes. In this essay, the Institute for Policy Innovation weighed in against the use of the tax law to “manipulate behavior and micromanage the economy” through an assortment of Internal Revenue Code provisions. On this point, we are in agreement. More than six years ago, in “Prof. Maule Goes to Washington”, in which, at the request of a former student, I outlined how I would reform the federal tax law, I wrote:
Also trashed are all the social policy provisions that ought to be in some other law, if indeed the citizens think that the federal government should be providing financial assistance to particular individuals or communities or to those who engage in particular activities. I understand that the Congress, which consistently criticizes the IRS, has a habit of demonstrating its true thoughts about that particular federal agency by putting into the tax law provisions that deal with matters that are within the purview of other federal agencies because the IRS appears to be more capable of administering these programs, but it's time for Congress to demand of the other agencies the same sort of competence that it attributes to the IRS when it turns to the IRS to handle its pet project of the week.Two and a half years later, in Not to Its Credit, I revisited the issue after the Congress used the Heartland, Habitat, Harvest, and Horticulture Act of 2008 to add and expand all sorts of tax credits:
I object to the Internal Revenue Service being turned into a institution that is focused more on the technical requirements of energy production activities than on administering revenue laws. I wonder why financial incentives to produce and conserve energy aren't administered by the Department of Energy. Well, I know the answer. The Congress, though every now and then publicly trashing the IRS and characterizing it as harmful, then turns to the same agency to administer its favorite incentives programs. Which should speak more loudly to America? What Congress says when it grandstands or what it does when it overburdens the tax law and the IRS because it apparently doesn't trust other agencies to administer laws relating to agriculture, energy, employment, or health?And about a year ago, in The Unintended Consequences of Tax Policy As a Social Tool, I focused on one of the many dangers of using the tax law as a means to encourage or discourage particular behavior:
In every instance where the Congress has used the tax law to encourage behavior, all sorts of people have crawled out from under the wood pile to claim that they were engaging in that behavior and thus entitled to the tax break, even though they were not engaging in that behavior. One need think only of the abuses with respect to the credit for new home purchases, the earned income tax credit, the plug-in electric and alternative motor vehicle credits, and the biodiesel fuel credit, to name but a few, to understand the inherent weakness of trying to use tax law to do what should be done through other means.The Institute for Policy Innovation, in issue 9.05 of Tax Bytes, correctly notes that both parties have abused the tax law in this respect. Whether it is one side trying to use the tax law to encourage and subsidize child-rearing or domestic manufacturing, or the other side trying to encourage home ownership or energy conservation, “it’s this drive to manipulate and micromanage that drives the tax code toward such incomprehensible complication.” My only quibble is that I think it’s not a matter of being driven toward incomprehensible complication. I think the tax law has already arrived at that destination.
The Institute for Policy Innovation, in issue 9.05 of Tax Bytes, asks:
. . . “What is the purpose of the tax code?” Is it to drive social outcomes and to try to shape society according to the vision and preferences of whoever happens to control the tax writing committees at any given time? . . . Rather, shouldn’t the purpose of the tax code be to raise the necessary revenue to fund government while creating as few economic distortions as possible? If you were going to write a tax code for a free society, wouldn’t you foreswear using the tax code to manipulate people’s behavior, and choose instead to have everyone subject to similar low rates, and eliminate virtually all credits, deductions, exemptions and schedules in the process?In the broad outline I presented in “Prof. Maule Goes to Washington”, I mapped out the basics:
Income would include income, with very few exclusions... As for outgo, there would be two basic deductions. One would be for the expense of producing the income... The other would be a deduction (or perhaps a credit) that would reflect the wisdom of not imposing a tax on those whose incomes were barely sufficient to live life...Perhaps, because all citizens ought to contribute something to the cost of government, a small ($10) tax ought to be imposed on taxable incomes under the cutoff, and a very low rate imposed on taxable income above the cutoff but below, say 125% of the cutoff... Of course, no surprise, when it comes to rates, all taxable income is taxed under a rate schedule...This approach permits lowering the tax rates. The base would be broadened, and thus rates could be reduced...Finally, there is the matter of credits. Of course the credits for taxes withheld (and I'd withhold on all income payments exceeding $500, not just wages and certain other payments) and estimated tax payments would be retained...There might be disagreement about which path to take, but at least in this case we seem to be pointing in the same direction.
Monday, February 13, 2012
In late 2010, in A Section 107 Puzzle: Is “A” Just “One” or “Any”?, I analyzed the decision in Driscoll v. Comr., 135 T.C. No. 27 (2010), in which the United States Tax Court, in a case of first impression, held that the exclusion from gross income under section 107 of a minister’s parsonage allowance is not limited to the portion used to provide the minister’s primary residence but also extends to the portion used to provide a second home, which happened to be located in a vacation area. The question of whether the term “a home” in section 107 meant “just one home” or “however many homes” divided the Tax Court judges. Ultimately, the taxpayer prevailed, with the majority supporting the conclusion that the word “a” did not mean “one.” As I wrote in A Section 107 Puzzle: Is “A” Just “One” or “Any”?, “The case is yet another example of how courts struggle to determine what Congress intended when examining statutory language the Congress almost surely enacted without thinking about the issue. The existence of majority, concurring, and dissenting opinions indicates the extent of the struggle.”
In the last paragraph of A Section 107 Puzzle: Is “A” Just “One” or “Any”?, I asked five questions:
What’s left are several questions for the future. First, will the IRS appeal, and if so, will it prevail? Second, will the IRS continue to issue notices of deficiency in these sorts of cases, knowing that it would lose in the Tax Court but hoping that it would prevail on appeal to a different Court of Appeals? Third, might the Supreme Court end up dealing with this issue? Fourth, will the Congress amend section 107 to respond to the Tax Court’s decision, and, if so, what will it do? Fifth, might the Congress repeal section 107, the existence of which is difficult to justify under any sort of tax policy analysis?It was at this point that I went out on a limb and explained: “I’m willing to predict that at some point in the future, a subsequent development with respect to this issue will be the subject of a future MauledAgain blog post.”
Well, here we are. Last week, in Comr. v. Driscoll, ___ F.3d ___ (11th Cir. 2012), the Eleventh Circuit reversed the Tax Court. Relying on Webster’s dictionary, the court concluded that “a home” refers to one home. Webster’s Dictionary provides three definitions of home. The first is “the house and grounds with their appurtenances habitually occupied by a family.” The second is “one’s principal place of residence” and the third is “domicile.” I suppose everyone who has a home in one area and a vacation property in another location is speaking improperly when they refer to their “vacation home” because that would suggest they have two homes. The court rejected the taxpayer’s argument that Congress, by using the term “principal residence” in other Code provisions but not in section 107, did not intend to limit section 107 to principal residences.
Aside from the substantive legal principle that emerges from this case, which of course is subject to a similar case being decided differently by another Court of Appeals, there are two lessons to consider. One is whether this issue demonstrates that section 107 has outlived its usefulness. My many clergy friends won’t be happy with the suggestion that it be repealed, but it presents a long list of issues, with this particular “how many” question being one of the less pervasive ones. The other lesson is the disadvantage of gargantuan tax codes. The Internal Revenue Code is so big that almost no one has a comprehensive understanding of its vocabulary and style. Different terms are used for the same concept because different individuals draft the language. The days when someone doing drafting could remember all the places where the same concept was referenced are long gone. Every additional provision brings the opportunity for additional ambiguities, inconsistencies, and language reconciliation challenges.
When one considers the time, energy, and other resources expended on this issue by the IRS, the taxpayer, and the two courts, it is easy to see the adverse impact that careless legislating has on people, the nation, and its economy. Once again, the root of the problem is with the Congress. Once again, the Congress has failed.
Friday, February 10, 2012
This morning’s question is whether the testimony offered by the taxpayers in a recent Tax Court case qualifies as a tall tale. Some of it might be just that. But other parts of it, to use the court’s words, “did not add up.”
In Esrig v. Comr., T.C. Memo 2012-38, the court was presented with one of those “everything but the kitchen sink” cases, in which a long list of unreported income items and challenged deductions were presented for consideration. The taxpayers had not filed timely returns from 1998 through 2003, and for some of those years they did not file at all, with the IRS eventually filing substitute returns for them. The taxpayers defense was that their losses and deductions exceeded their income. Even if true, how does that justify failure to file? To the contrary, he tax deficiency for the six years in issue exceeded $700,000. The notices of deficiency for three of those years asserted more than $1.5 million in unreported income.
The case came down to a matter of substantiation. Did the taxpayers have evidence to support their position? Two of the issues caught my eye because of the evidence that was offered. All of the evidence presented by the taxpayers consisted of the husband’s testimony.
The taxpayers claimed a section 179 deduction in the amount of $17,700. This was the “cost of a fish tank and dining room furniture.” The first thought that crossed my mind was, “Either the tank or table was huge, or they were made of platinum.”
The husband testified that he and his wife both used the dining room table primarily for business meetings. The court, which by this point in the opinion had consistently found the husband’s testimony inconsistent with the tax returns and other information and had characterized his testimony as not credible, simply stated, “We did not find [husband’s] testimony credible.” Some people do let things pile up on dining room tables and rarely use them for eating purposes, but the combination of the price tag, the doubts about whether the taxpayers actually conducted businesses, and the absence of any other evidence, such as photographs of the table being used for business purposes, doomed the taxpayers.
The fish tank presented even more interesting testimony. The husband testified “that they put in a fish tank in the foyer of their home where their business contacts would sit and wait for meetings.” Again, the court simply dismissed the testimony as not credible. Aside from the alleged cost of the tank, even if there were business contacts sitting in the foyer, is a fish tank an ordinary and necessary expense of conducting business? Perhaps, if the business consists of selling fish, selling fish tanks, or perhaps even teaching people to fish. None of the business activities in which the taxpayers claimed to engage had anything to do with fish.
The case then reached new heights when the court turned to the question of the addition to tax for late filing. The husband blamed the couple’s tax accountant. He testified that he asked the accountant to prepare extensions, but that the accountant did not do so because she was in prison serving a long sentence for murdering her husband. The husband claimed that the person still working in the accountant’s office “made a slew of mistakes.” Is it reasonable for a taxpayer to continue asking someone to prepare extensions over a seven-year period if the taxpayer learns that the person is in prison? Is it reasonable to continue returning to the same office staffed by the same employee if that employee is making a slew of mistakes? Of course, the claim that the accountant was in prison was either a tall tale or a lie. It isn’t that difficult to obtain proof of a person being sentenced to prison, but as the court put it, the taxpayers “had no evidence to corroborate this lurid tale.”
Lurid tale. Tall tale. Sad tale.