Designated Orders: Penalties Imposed and Analysis of an Investment Firm (10/1/18 to 10/5/18)

0 Flares Filament.io 0 Flares ×

Designated Order blogger William Schmidt from the Legal Aid Society of Kansas brings us this week’s orders. Keith

This week provides 4 designated orders. The batch includes two related orders regarding penalties for the same petitioner, analysis of an investment firm and an order concerning specific memos required before trial (Order Here). That order is a good example of what is needed in a pretrial memo in a case under regular tax case procedures: issues of fact and law, each party’s position and theories, expert witness testimony anticipated, and status of stipulations of facts.

read more...

Tax Court Penalties Imposed

Docket # 16108-14 L, Rodney P. Walker v. C.I.R. (Order and Decision Here).

Docket # 9435-15 L, Rodney P. Walker v. C.I.R. (Order and Decision Here).

While there have been previous designated orders for Mr. Walker, his cases were not discussed here before. Each of the two cases are collection due process cases. One case concerns collection by levy for Mr. Walker’s unpaid 2007 and 2009 income taxes (16108-14) while the other case concerns collection by lien of his unpaid 2001 through 2007 income taxes. Otherwise, the orders are virtually identical yet ordered on two separate days.

Originally, Mr. Walker’s cases were remanded to IRS Appeals for a supplemental hearing on the issues listed above. The settlement officer provided him an explanation of how his 2007 and 2009 taxes were calculated and afforded him the opportunity to file returns claiming lesser taxes but he did not file those returns. Mr. Walker instead used the hearing to raise an issue previously ruled on by the Court.

The Court believed Mr. Walker used the period of remand primarily for delay and issued an order on August 27 to show cause that it was not a frivolous argument and why no penalty should be imposed. In fact, the penalty in question is from Internal Revenue Code (IRC) section 6673(a)(1). The section authorizes a penalty of up to $25,000 if the taxpayer has instituted or maintained proceedings before the Tax Court primarily for delay or if the taxpayer’s position is frivolous or groundless.

Mr. Walker did not respond to the August 27 order to show cause. The Court then imposes a section 6673(a)(1) penalty of $5,000 (it is my understanding that even though these are separate orders there would only be one penalty imposed). The Court orders that the IRS may proceed with the collection actions for the years in question.

Takeaway: The Tax Court is showing its teeth with regard to frivolous or groundless filings. While it is doubtful a petitioner that would file such a case is a reader of this blog site, it is worthwhile to note that the Tax Court is not afraid to impose penalties on petitioners trying to use the Tax Court just as a means of delaying IRS taking collection actions. While other cases have brought up the penalty without imposing it (giving little more than a slap on the wrist), this is a time where the Court made use of this power and imposed a decent penalty.

Was it a “Trade or Business”?

Docket # 8486-17, 8489-17, 8494-17, 8497-17, Richard M. Hellmann & Dianna G. Hellmann, et al., v. C.I.R. (Order Here).

GF Family Management, LLC (GFM) is an investment management firm owned and operated by members of the same family (the petitioners) and it is a family office as defined by federal securities law. The petitioners each hold a 25% profits interest in GFM and the assets managed by GFM were held by six investment partnerships. GFM held a 1% interest in each partnership, and trusts where the petitioners are the beneficiaries held (individually or collectively) the remaining 99% of each partnership.

GFM claimed expense deductions as a “trade or business” under IRC section 162. That would allow for GFM to claim ordinary business expense deductions for operating costs such as salaries, rent or investment expenses. The IRS contends GFM was actually engaged in activity “for the production or collection of income” or “for the management, conservation, or maintenance of property held for the production of income” under IRC section 212. That treatment would mean GFM’s expenses would be treated as miscellaneous itemized deductions subject to the 2% floor imposed by IRC section 67(a). The treatment will also be limited by application of the alternative minimum tax. Carryover of net operating losses are only permitted for a trade or business so that would also be limited for GFM.

Within this order, there is comparison to the fact situation in Lender Management, LLC v. C.I.R. Within that case, the Court emphasized the need to examine each case individually. In that case, the Court determined that it was in fact a trade or business.

Overall, the question is whether the owners of the family office are “actively engaged in providing services to others” (citing Lender Management) or are simply providing services to themselves. The Court provides factors for its analysis and proceeds to list factual issues it would like answered.

The parties are ordered to provide a joint status report by November 5. Within the report they are to express whether the facts will need to be developed at trial or to supplement the factual record through a stipulation of facts. Also, the parties will need to state whether the stipulation of facts could be submitted for decision without trial under Rule 122.

Takeaway: The IRS examination of this investment firm seems logical as the structure provides benefits to its family members. Is the firm actually a “trade or business” or is functioning in more of a self-serving capacity? The Court’s stance also sounds logical as the facts do not necessarily parallel the Lender Management facts so it is necessary to do further factual investigation to determine what kind of role the firm functions under. It is worth noting the major tax implications such a decision will result in for GFM, as listed above.

 

 

Comments

  1. The “trade or business” issue is even more important for 2018 and later years, since “miscellaneous deductions” for investment expenses have been repealed.

  2. Norman Diamond says:

    The IRS allowed Tax Court to hear two separate cases, one for lien and one for levy, for the same tax year 2007?

  3. Fabrice Georis says:

    If the GP in investment partnerships is engaged in a trade or business, shouldn’t this trade or business be attributed “down and up” to the LPs (trusts) if the GP and the LPs are held by the same individuals? This would preclude the LPs from claiming capital gain treatment on their investments.

Comment Policy: While we all have years of experience as practitioners and attorneys, and while Keith and Les have taught for many years, we think our work is better when we generate input from others. That is one of the reasons we solicit guest posts (and also because of the time it takes to write what we think are high quality posts). Involvement from others makes our site better. That is why we have kept our site open to comments.

If you want to make a public comment, you must identify yourself (using your first and last name) and register by including your email. If you do not, we will remove your comment. In a comment, if you disagree with or intend to criticize someone (such as the poster, another commenter, a party or counsel in a case), you must do so in a respectful manner. We reserve the right to delete comments. If your comment is obnoxious, mean-spirited or violates our sense of decency we will remove the comment. While you have the right to say what you want, you do not have the right to say what you want on our blog.

Speak Your Mind

*