Larry's Tax Law

As reported on March 8, 2017, the U.S. Tax Court issued a taxpayer-friendly decision in Estate of George H. Bartell, et. al. v. Commissioner, 147 TC 5 (June 10, 2016).  The ruling seemed too good to be true. I advised readers to proceed with caution!

Many taxpayers, exchange accommodators, and real estate professionals have been touting the ruling as a clear green light for reverse parking exchanges exceeding the 180-day period pronounced in Revenue Procedure 2000-37 despite the facts that:

• • Judge Gale of the U.S. Tax Court clearly said in the opinion that the court was not giving any opinion with respect to reverse exchanges that exceed the 180-day safe harbor; and
  • The Bartell case involved transactions that pre-dated the effective date of Revenue Procedure 2000-37 and Treasury’s issuance of the deferred exchange regulations.

Judge Ruwe ruled in Jeremy M. Jacobs and Margaret J. Jacobs v. Commissioner, 148 T.C. 24 (June 26, 2017), that a free lunch may exist today under Federal tax law. In this case, the taxpayers, owners of the Boston Bruins of the National Hockey League, paid for pre-game meals provided by hotels for the players and team personnel while traveling away from Boston for games.

Pursuant to the union collective bargaining agreement governing the Bruins, the team is required to travel to away games a day before the game when the flight is 150 minutes or longer. Before the away games, the Bruins provides the players and staff with a pre-game meal and snack. The meal and snack menus are designed to meet the players’ nutritional guidelines and maximize game performance.

During the tax years at issue, the taxpayers deducted the full cost of the meals and snacks. Upon audit, the IRS contended the cost of the meals and snacks were subject to the 50% limitation under Code Section 274(n)(1) which provides in part:

In most areas of law, substance prevails over form. Code Section 1031 is possibly one of the few exceptions to this time-honored rule of jurisprudence. Under Code Section 1031, form may prevail over substance. The U.S. Tax Court’s decision in Estate of George H. Bartell, et. al. v. Commissioner, 147 TC 5 (June 10, 2016), supports this thesis.

Estate of George H. Bartell et. al. v. Commissioner

Case Background

The facts of the case are fairly straightforward. Bartell Drug, an old family-owned chain of retail drugstores located in the state of Washington, was owned by the petitioner and his two children. In 1999, the company entered into an agreement to purchase a parcel of land upon which it intended to build a new drugstore (“Replacement Property”). Bartell Drug had a store located on a property it owned in White Center, Washington, and it anticipated selling this property (“Relinquished Property”) to fund, in part, the cost of the Replacement Property. In order to lawfully avoid paying taxes on the gain from the sale of the Relinquished Property, the stage was set for an exchange of real property that would qualify for tax deferral under Code Section 1031. A few obstacles, however, stood in the taxpayer’s way, namely: (i) the Replacement Property was found by the taxpayer before a buyer for the Relinquished Property could be found; (ii) the Replacement Property was land without the improvements needed to operate a drugstore (i.e., a building); and (iii) in order to defer all of the gain from the sale of the Relinquished Property, the taxpayer would need to buy the Replacement Property once it was improved.

Effective October 1, 2016, the Internal Revenue Service (“IRS”) changed its approach to conducting appeals conferences. The changes were likely adopted by the government under the guise of efficiency and cost savings. With that said, the changes probably will result in increased negative taxpayer perception of the IRS administrative process, and a significant reduction in prompt and fair resolution of matters at the conference level.

In a nutshell, the major change adopted by the IRS, subject to limited exceptions, is that the government will conduct all appeals conferences by telephone (or a virtual conference, if available). IRM § 8.6.1.4.1. An in-person conference generally will only be allowed if the appeals conferee (i.e., the “Appeals Technical Employee” or “ATE”) and the Appeals Team Manager (“ATM”) concur that it is appropriate and reasonable. As such, they must agree:

On May 11, 2015, after serving as Director of the Office of Professional Responsibility (“OPR”) for approximately six (6) years, Ms. Karen Hawkins announced her intention to step-down and retire, effective July 11, 2015.

The OPR is responsible for interpreting and applying the Treasury Regulations governing practice before the Internal Revenue Service (commonly known as “Circular 230”).  It has exclusive responsibility for overseeing practitioner conduct and implementing discipline.  For this purpose, practitioners include attorneys, certified public accountants, enrolled agents, enrolled actuaries, appraisers, and all other persons representing taxpayers before the Internal Revenue Service.

The Internal Revenue Service (“IRS” or “Service”) has repeatedly stated that, while its crackdown on the failure of taxpayers to report foreign financial accounts has been strong, it is reasonable in the application of the law. At least one taxpayer, Mr. Carl R. Zwerner, would likely debate that pronouncement.

On June 9, 2014, Bloomberg BNA Daily Tax Report (No. 110) revealed that a long and hotly-contested battle between Mr. Zwerner and the United States government has come to an end. This highly-publicized case is frightening. It illustrates that the IRS may not always be reasonable in the application of the foreign financial account reporting (“FBAR”) laws.

Mr. Zwerner, an 87-year old retired specialty-glass importer, is a United States citizen who resides in Coral Gables, Florida. He had a financial account in Switzerland. The account balance never exceeded $1.7 million. It appears the account was opened by Mr. Zwerner during 2004 in the name of a foundation. In 2007, he closed the original account and transferred the account balance to another Swiss account. The new account was opened in the name of yet another foundation. Mr. Zwerner controlled these accounts; he was undisputedly the beneficial owner of the accounts.

On June 11, 2013, the battle commenced when Assistant Attorney General Kathryn Keneally instituted a lawsuit against Mr. Zwerner in the United States District Court for the Southern District of Florida, seeking to collect almost $3.5 million in penalties from him for violating the FBAR rules. The assessment which the government was pursuing against Mr. Zwerner amounted to more than double the highest account balance of his Swiss financial account.

While the IRS is back in business following the recent government shutdown, it may not receive your requests for private letter rulings with open arms.  Before requesting a private letter ruling, tax practitioners need to review the Service’s recent no-ruling revenue procedures, namely Revenue Procedure 2013-32 and Revenue Procedure 2013-3.

While the new no-ruling revenue procedures are broad in scope, it is possible the Service may still issue rulings in areas that otherwise appear to be no-ruling topics.  So, you should consider a pre-submission meeting or conversation with the IRS to determine whether a ruling may be available and/or to discuss how you should tailor a ruling request in light of these new revenue procedures.

There are rumors circulating in the media that taxpayer filing and payment obligations are currently on hold pending the Federal shutdown.  WRONG!

The IRS announced last week, despite its limited resources during the shutdown, taxpayer obligations continue.  These obligations must be met in a timely manner.  There will be no extensions arising from the shutdown.

Individuals and businesses are required to file returns, pay taxes, make estimate tax payments, and make tax deposits in a timely manner as required by applicable law.  The shutdown does not impact these obligations or the time frame in which to fulfill them.  It does, however, create a few hiccups for tax advisors and their clients, including:

To qualify as an S Corporation for the current tax year, a corporation must make an election: (1) at any time during the entity’s preceding tax year; or (2) at any time before the 15th day of the 3rd month of the current tax year.  If a corporation fails to make a timely election, it is considered a “late S election” and it will not qualify as an S Corporation for the intended tax year.

The consequences of a late S election or failing to file an S election can be severe.  First, the corporation will be taxed as a C Corporation and subject to corporate income taxes.  Second, the corporation may be subject to late filing and payment penalties, and interest on unpaid taxes.  Finally, if the corporation filed IRS Forms 1120S as if it were an S Corporation, then all prior tax years would be subject to IRS examination because the tax years remain open.

People are often surprised by the long reach of Internal Revenue Service (“Service” or “IRS”) liens.¹  Plains Capital Corporation (“Plains”) recently learned this lesson.  Plains lost a fight with the Service in a case before the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Texas.  It appealed to Fifth Circuit Court of Appeals.  Losing again, Plains proceeded with an appeal to the United States Supreme Court.  Unfortunately, on June 24, 2013, the highest court in the nation refused to hear Plain’s appeal.²  The saga is over for Plains, but the case should be a loud warning to others.

In 2002 and 2003, the Service assessed taxpayer Gregory Rand (“Rand”) for tax liabilities arising from 2000 and 2002.  It eventually filed notices of federal tax liens totaling over $3 million (“Tax Liens”).

In 2005, Rand obtained a $200,000 line of credit from Plains.  Plains was aware of the Tax Liens.  To secure its credit extension, however, it took possession of the title to Rand’s 2005 Ferrari.  Plains thought taking possession of the vehicle title would put it in front of the IRS.  Wrong!

In 2007, Rand agreed with the IRS that he would deliver the Ferrari to Boardwalk Motor Sports, Ltd (“Boardwalk”).  Boardwalk agreed to sell the vehicle on consignment.

The Service and Plains could not agree upon the priority of their respective liens.  So, the IRS served a notice of levy on Boardwalk and instructed Boardwalk to deliver the sale proceeds to it.  Later, an IRS agent instructed Boardwalk not to release the sale proceeds until the IRS and Plains reached agreement on lien priorities.  If it was unsure whether an agreement was reached, Boardwalk was instructed to go to the local court and file an interpleader action.