Tuesday, July 16, 2019

Advance Payment for Goods--Reg. 1.451-5 Removed by TD 9870


Prior to the TCJA, Reg. §1.451-5 provided special rules for advanced payment for goods and long term contracts. These rules were superseded by revised IRC §451(c). The prior regulations implementing IRC §451 allowed taxpayers generally to defer the recognition of advance payment for goods until the tax year in which the payments were properly accruable under the taxpayer's method of accounting for tax purposes if that method results in the payments being included in gross income no later than when they are includible in gross receipts under the taxpayer's method of accounting for financial reporting purposes.[1]

Revised IRC §451(c) and its election to defer advance payments removed the deferral method provided by Reg. §1.451-5.[2] On July 15, 2019 the Treasury issued T.D. 9870 and removed Reg. §1.451-5 and its cross references. Removing Reg. §1.451-5 ensures that the new deferral rules of IRC §451(c) apply uniformly and consistently to all taxpayers and simplifies tax administration. The rules of IRC §446 regarding changes in methods of accounting apply to taxpayers changing a method of accounting for advance payments from a method described in Reg. §1.451-5 to another method of accounting[3]. The removal of Reg. §1.451-5 is effective for tax years ending on or after Jul. 15, 2019. 


Code §451(c) generally requires an accrual method taxpayer that receives any advance payment described in IRC §451(c)(4) during the tax year to include the advance payment in income in the tax year of receipt or make an election to:

(1) include any portion of the advance payment in income in the tax year of receipt to the extent required under Code Sec. 451(b); and

(2) include the remaining portion of the advance payment in income in the following tax year.  

Under IRC 451(c)(2) a taxpayer may make a deferral election for any portion of the advance payment that is otherwise required to be included in gross income under financial statement rules.  If the election is made the advance payment would be included in gross income in the tax year in which it is received and the remaining portion of the advance payment would be included in gross income in the tax year following the tax year in which it is received.[4] An item of gross income is received by the taxpayer if it is actually or constructively received, or if it is due and payable to the taxpayer.[5]

Treasury and the IRS expect to issue guidance for the treatment of advance payments to implement the TCJA amendments to IRC §451. In the meantime, taxpayers with or without applicable financial statements may continue to rely on Rev. Proc. 2004-34 for the treatment of advance payments. Until new guidance is issued, the IRS will not challenge a taxpayer’s use of Rev Proc 2004-34 to satisfy the requirements of IRC § 451, although it will continue to verify on examination that taxpayers are properly applying Rev Proc 2004-34[6].

How to elect to defer inclusion of advance payments in income. The IRS is instructed to provide details on making the election to defer the inclusion of advance payments in income. This includes the time, form and manner, and the categories of advance payments. The election will be effective for the tax year with respect to which it is first made and for all subsequent tax years, unless the taxpayer obtains the IRS's consent to revoke the election.[7]

Change of accounting method. The computation of taxable income under the deferral election for advance payments is treated as a method of accounting.[8] In the case of any qualified change of accounting method for the taxpayer's first tax year beginning after December 31, 2017, the change is treated as initiated by the taxpayer and made with the IRS's consent. A qualified change of accounting method is any change of accounting method that is required by the new income recognition rules or was prohibited and is now permitted under the new rules.[9] For a qualified change of accounting method involving income from a debt instrument with original issue discount (OID), taxpayers should use a six-year period for taking into account any required IRC §481 adjustments.[10]

What is an Advance Payment?

Rev. Proc. 2004-34 allows a one-year deferral in certain cases of prepaid income. The ruling pertains to prepayment for services to be rendered before the end of the next succeeding year. In particular, Rev. Proc. 2004-34 provides that a payment received by a taxpayer is an advance payment if:
(1)    the inclusion of the payment in gross income for the taxable year of receipt is a permissible method of accounting for federal income tax purposes;
(2)    the payment is recognized by the taxpayer (in whole or in part) in revenues in the taxpayer's applicable financial statement for a subsequent taxable year or, for taxpayers without an applicable financial statement, the payment is earned by the taxpayer (in whole or in part) in a subsequent taxable year; and
(3)    the payment is for
(a) services;

(b) the sale of goods;

(c) the use (including by license or lease) of intellectual property;

(d) the occupancy or use of property, if the occupancy or use is ancillary to the provision of services (for example, advance payments for the use of rooms or other quarters in a hotel, booth space at a trade show, campsite space at a mobile home park, and recreational or banquet facilities, or other uses of property so long as the use is ancillary to the provision of services to the property user);

(e) the sale, lease, or license of computer software;

(f)  guaranty or warranty contracts ancillary to an item or items described in subparagraph (a), (b), (c), (d), or (e), above;

(g) subscriptions (other than subscriptions for which an election under IRC §455 is in effect), whether or not provided in a tangible or intangible format;

(h) memberships in an organization (other than memberships for which an election under IRC §456 is in effect);

(i)              an eligible gift card sale; or

(j)  any combination of items described in subparagraphs (a) through (i) above.

 What Are Not Advance Payments

Under Rev. Proc. 2004-34, the term “advance payment” does not include:

           Insurance premiums, to the extent the recognition of those premiums are governed by Subchapter L;

           Payments with respect to financial instruments (for example, debt instruments, deposits, letters of credit, notional principal contracts, options, forward contracts, futures contracts, foreign currency contracts, credit card agreements, financial derivatives, etc.), including purported prepayments of interest;

           Payments with respect to service warranty contracts for which the taxpayer uses the accounting method provided in Rev. Proc. 97-38;[11]

           Payments with respect to warranty and guaranty contracts under which a third party is the primary obligor;

           Payments subject to IRC §§871(a), 881, 1441, or 1442;

           Payments in property to which IRC §83 applies;

           Rent; and

           Any other payment identified by the IRS for this purpose.[12]

Advance Payment” Defined Under IRC §451(c)(4)

Under IRC §451(c)(4) an “advance payment” is any payment:[13]
  • the full inclusion of which in the taxpayer’s gross income for the tax year of receipt is a permissible method of accounting under IRC §451 (determined without regard to IRC §451[14];
  • any portion of which is included in revenue by the taxpayer in a financial statement described in IRC §451(b)(1)(A)(i) or IRC §451(b)(1)(A)(ii) for a later tax year[15] and
  • which is for goods, services, or other items as the IRS may identify for these purposes[16].
Except as otherwise provided by the IRS, an advance payment does not include:
  • rent[17];
  • insurance premiums governed by subchapter L (IRC §801 through IRC §848)[18];
  • payments as to financial instruments[19];
  • payments as to warranty or guarantee contracts under which a third party is the primary obligor[20];
  • payments subject to:
    • IRC §871(a) (i.e., the tax on income of nonresident alien individuals not connected with a U.S. business),
    • IRC §881 (i.e., the tax on income of foreign corporations not connected with a U.S. business),
    • IRC §1441 (i.e., the tax withheld on certain amounts paid to foreign persons), or
    • IRC §1442 (i.e., the tax withheld from income of foreign corporations)[21].
  • payments in property to which IRC §83 (taxation of property transferred in connection with the performance of services., and
  • any other payment identified by the IRS for purposes of IRC §451(c)(4)(B)[22].
An item of gross income is received by the taxpayer if it is actually or constructively received, or if it is due and payable to the taxpayer[23].
            Until Treasury issues new guidance regarding advance payment for goods, taxpayer can rely on IRC §451(c)(4) for treatment of advance payments.

           


[1] See Reg. §1.451-5(b)(1)(ii)(a).
[2] See H.R. Rep. No. 115-466, at 429 n.880 (2017) (Conf. Rep.).
[4] IRC §451(c)(1)(B), as added by TCJA.
[5] IRC §451(c) (4)(C), as added by TCJA.
[7] IRC §451(c)(2), as added by TCJA.
[8] IRC §451(c)(2)(B), as added by TCJA.
[9] TCJA §13221(d).
[10] TCJA §13221(e)(2).
[11] 1997-2 CB 479.
[12] IRC §451(c)(4)(B), as added by the TCJA.
[16] IRC § 451(c)(4)(A)(iii).
[18] IRC § 451(c)(4)(B)(ii)
[19] IRC § 451(c)(4)(B)(iii)
[20] IRC § 451(c)(4)(B)(iv)
[21] IRC § 451(c)(4)(B)(v)
[22] IRC § 451(c)(4)(B)(vii)
[23] IRC § 451(c)(4)(C).


Thursday, July 11, 2019

It’s called the Setting Every Community Up for Retirement Enhancement, or the SECURE Act of 2019.


Let’s take a look.

Good Points-depending on your individual situation.

More time in IRAs and 401(k)s. The bill would push back the age for required minimum distributions (RMDs) from 70½ to 72 years old. With 65,000 baby boomers retiring daily, those who would rather not take their RMD’s and not have them taxed and defer the distribution for two years this is a good feature. Moreover the fund could continue to grow tax free.

Grant part-time workers benefits. Long-term part-time employees would be able to participate in their company’s 401(k) plans.

Boost small-business 401(k)s. Small businesses could band together in group plans.

Annuity adoptions. Would allow employer-sponsored 401(k) plans to add annuities as investment options on the menu.-this feature is favored by insurance companies as providing annuities is a big market.

529 plans. 529 plans would be expanded to pay for expenses related to an apprenticeship or to pay back as much as $10,000 in student loans.

Bad Points-depending on your individual situation.

Age limits
Investors with 401(k) plans or other tax-deferred accounts would have another year and a half before Uncle Sam required withdrawals. Instead of taking money out at 70½, Americans would be able to wait until they turned 72. It gives extra time to grow your investments before you have to start taking money out of your accounts yet take the funds out at a later date would actuarially require larger starting distributions as the time frame for taking the would be less.
To make up for lost tax revenue, the House bill would require Americans who inherit an IRA to withdraw the money within 10 years of the account owner’s death, along with paying any taxes due. Notwithstanding the surviving spouses and minor children would be excluded. Under current law, heirs spend down inherited IRA accounts over their lifetime, an estate-planning strategy known as the “stretch IRA.” The SECURE Act would do away with the stretch IRA. This is a big change and subjects the inherited IRA to income tax at a faster rate. Apparently this was a tradeoff from a revenue perspective to allow a delay in the RMD’s.

Moreover from an estate planning perspective the elimination of the stretch IRA will change the thinking of whether it is better to withdraw the IRA and have it taxed at the (presumably) owner’s lower tax rate and pass on the net to his heirs or maintain the fund, defer, and allow the fund to continue to grow. This will be a new issue for estate planners to consider.

The Senate version, known as RESA, is slightly less punitive and may instead call for a five-year payout period for inherited IRAs over $400,000 per heir.

Other Points
The bill would require your employer’s 401(k)-type retirement plan to allow “permanent” part-time workers to participate. To qualify, you would need to have worked 500 or more hours a year (but fewer than 1,000 hours) for at least three consecutive years. There are 2,080 hours in the traditional 40-hour-a-week year.

401(k) options for small businesses
If House and Senate bills pass and become law, small businesses could have the option to join group plans alongside other companies. This lowers administration and management costs and ideally makes higher-quality plans available to small businesses and their workers.
Current law allows small businesses starting a new retirement plan a $500 tax credit. The SECURE Act bill would increase the credit to as much as $5,000, and apply for three years.

Annuity options, good and bad
The bill would allow 401(k) plans to add annuities as an option for employees.
The idea is that annuities solve the problem of lifetime income for workers who once received pensions. Annuities are insurance policies that convert retirement savings into income. Common in pension plans, annuities to date have not been popular in 401(k) plans.

The House bill would repeal the so-called kiddie tax changes beginning in 2019, although taxpayers could elect to use the old tax rules for 2018 if they wish. This would be a welcome change for those who were surprised by increases in tax under the new tax rules, which subjected those children to the trust tax rates and brackets rather than using their parents’ brackets. This is especially true for college students who received taxable scholarships and `Gold Star’ families, those who are collecting military survivor benefits after losing a parent.

A final positive: The SECURE Act would allow investors early access to IRA funds for any “qualified birth or adoption” by creating a new exception to the 10 percent penalty.

Everyone whether beginning to save for retirement, about to retire, or in retirement needs to periodically examine their retirement account to insure it comports with their current needs.


Monday, July 1, 2019

Spouse May Roll Over Decedent's IRA Made Payable to Trust for Spouse's Exclusive Benefit with Spouse as Trustee



In PLR 201923002 (June 7, 2019), the IRS stated that a surviving spouse could roll over to an IRA in her own name a distribution from her late husband's IRA, even though the beneficiary was a trust for the benefit of the spouse, rather than the spouse. The IRS stated that, because the spouse was entitled to the IRA proceeds as the sole beneficiary of the trust during her life, she was effectively the individual for whose benefit the account is maintained for purposes of the roll-over rules.

Moreover the Decedent's IRAs will not be treated as inherited IRAs under IRC §408(d) as to taxpayer/surviving spouse. Also, taxpayer/surviving spouse was entitled to rollover distributions from stated IRAs into one or more IRAs set up and maintained in her own name, as long as rollover occurred within 60 days from date distribution was received from stated IRAs.

The Facts

The Decedent was married to Taxpayer (hereinafter “Spouse”) until his death, at which time both the Decedent and his Spouse were over 70 ½ years old.

At the time of his death, the Decedent owned an individual retirement account- the “Decedent's IRA.” The beneficiary of Decedent's IRA was a Trust for the benefit of the spouse. The spouse was the sole trustee and beneficiary of Trust which provided that the spouse could withdraw its net income and/or its principal. Additionally the spouse has the right to modify, amend, or revoke the Trust at any time and has the sole authority and discretion to distribute the Decedent's IRA proceeds to herself at any time. The spouse decided to roll the amounts paid to her from Decedent's IRA to an IRA in her own name rather than the Trust.

The critical question was the application of IRC §1.408-8, Q&A-5, which provides that a surviving spouse of an individual may elect to treat the spouse's entire interest as a beneficiary in the individual's IRA as the spouse's own IRA. In order to make this election, the spouse must be the sole beneficiary of the IRA and have an unlimited right to withdraw amounts from the IRA. If a trust is named the beneficiary of the IRA, this requirement is not satisfied even if the spouse is the sole beneficiary of the trust.

As the Trust was the named beneficiary the interpretation and application of this provision was critical.

Since the US Supreme Court Decision in Clark v. Rameker, 134 S. Ct. 2242, (2014) the trusteed Individual Retirement Account has become a way of shielding retirement account from creditors[1]. Accordingly it’s not uncommon to have a trusteed IRA rather than a custodial IRA. Indeed several institutional investment companies have picked up on this issued and have formulated their own trusteed IRA trusts.

The dilemma therefore is how to draft a trusteed IRA trust to avoid the application of IRC §1.408-8, Q&A-5. Most trusteed IRA trust have minimum distribution requirements and limited withdrawal powers. If the beneficiary is a spouse of a second marriage it is unlikely that the Settlor will give his or her spouse unlimited withdrawal powers. If the spouse is the spouse of a long standing marriage it is more likely that the spouse will have an unlimited withdrawal power.

In PLR 201923002 the spouse had an unlimited withdrawal power. The IRS reasoned that notwithstanding IRC §1.408-8, Q&A-5, which prohibits a rollover of an IRA to a spouse who is a beneficiary of a trust, because the spouse was entitled to the proceeds of Decedent's IRA as the sole beneficiary of Spouse’s Trust during her life, for purposes of applying IRC §408(d)(3)(A) to Decedent's IRA, the Spouse is effectively the individual for whose benefit the account is maintained. Accordingly, the IRS ruled that if the Spouse receives a distribution of the proceeds of Decedent's IRA, subject to the limitation of IRC §408(d)(3)(B), she may roll over the distribution (other than amounts required to have been distributed or to be distributed in accordance with section 401(a)(9)) into one or more IRAs established and maintained in her name.


[1] Brunetti, the Trusteed Individual Retirement Account, New Jersey Law Journal, (December 29, 2014).


Wednesday, June 12, 2019

Remote Material Participation Approved by US Tax Court


In a recent Memorandum Opinion, the Tax Court held that a taxpayer satisfied the requirements for materially participating in his Chicago based business despite living in Florida approximately 60 percent of the year. Satisfying the test for material participation is important because it allows you to use your business losses to offset other sources of business income. Meanwhile, deductions and losses generated by a “passive activity” are limited to income from passive activities.

The Tax Court’s ruling in Barbara v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2019-50, is good news for business owners because it confirms that working remotely will not be treated any differently than working in a physical office with respect to calculating the time spent towards an activity for purposes of material participation. Accordingly, you may live in one state and operate a business in another while still satisfying the material participation requirements.

Material Participation Tests

Red state, blue state, high tax state, low tax state; with the passage of the TCJA, these issues have become more significant.  The income tax rates for several states are as follow:

                        New Jersey                 8.97%
                        New York                   8.82%
                        Vermont                      8.95%
                        Illinois                        4.95%
                        New York City (in addition to the New York
                        State Tax Rate)           3.876%
           
On the other hand, seven states do not have income taxes.  They are:

                        Florida
                        Nevada
                        South Dakota
                        Texas
                        Washington
                        Alaska
                        Wyoming

If you were to select a place to live and your focus was the least amount of state and local income taxes, the choices are obvious.  The issue is, however, if you are conducting a business in a high tax state, can you have your domicile in a low tax state. Perhaps under the right circumstances, you may utilize Puerto Rico’s incentive provisions. Act 20 and Act 22, to substantially reduce your combined federal and state income tax burden.  These acts were designed to bring service businesses and wealthy individuals to Puerto Rico.  Act 20 and Act 22 are attractive to service providers who do not need to be physically present in one of the fifty states.

Aside from the obvious geographical challenges and perhaps time zones, there is also an IRS tax section that might prevent you from utilizing a loss in a tax year to offset gains in current or subsequent years.  Normally if a taxpayer, who is in a trade or business and suffers a net operating loss, under the TCJA 80% of the loss can be carried forward to offset income in a future year.  The key element is the loss occurs in a trade or business in which the taxpayer is active.  Being an active participant allows losses in the activity to offset other current ordinary income or future income.  See Section 162(a) and Section 212(1).

On the other hand, if the taxpayer is not active in the business, the losses cannot be used because the losses are passive losses passive losses can only be used against passive income.  Section 469 limits those deductions when they arise from “passive activities.”  A passive activity is any activity involving the conduct of a trade or business in which the taxpayer does not materially participate.  Section 469(c)(1).  A taxpayer materially participates in an activity if such participation is regular, continuous and substantial.  Section 469(h)(1).  Regulations provide seven alternative tests to determine whether a taxpayer has materially participated in an activity for the taxable year.

These are:

Tests Based on Current Participation

1.         The individual participates in the activity for more than 500 hours during the year.

2.         The individual’s participation in the activity for the taxable year constitutes substantially all of the participation in the activity of all individuals (including nonowner employees) for the year.

3.         The individual participates in the activity for more than 100 hours during the year, and this participation is not less than that participation of any other individual (including nonowner employees) for the year.

4.         The activity is a significant participation activity (where the person’s participation exceeds 100 hours during the year), and the hours for all significant participation activities during the year is more than 500 hours.

Tests Based on Prior Participation

1.         The individual materially participated in the activity for any 5 taxable years during the 10 taxable years that immediately precede the current taxable year.

2.         The activity is a personal service activity, and the individual materially participated in the activity for any 3 preceding taxable years.

Tests Based on Facts and Circumstances

1.         Based on all of the facts and circumstances, the individual participates in the activity on a regular, continuous, and substantial basis during the year.

The IRS regulations contained substantial detail on how to meet one of the seven tests.  Mr. Fred Barbara managed to be a Florida domiciliary and operated a business in Chicago and yet satisfy the material participation test of the passive activity rules.

Barbara v. Commissioner, TC Memo 2019-50

The Barbaras reside in Florida when they filed their petition.  Presumably, they were domiciled in Florida.

For many years, Fred Barbara owned and managed Barbara Trucking, a Chicago-area garbage collection and waste management business.

In 1997, Mr. Barbara sold Barbara Trucking for tens of millions of dollars.

Mr. Barbara used the proceeds from the sale of Barbara Trucking to start a money lending business.  This business capitalized on the network of contacts in the Chicago construction industry that he had developed while running Barbara Trucking.
In conducting the lending business, he usually lent the money in his personal capacity.  But on a few occasions, he lent the money through a family trust or a closely held limited liability company, Barbara Capital II, LLC.  This LLC is treated as a partnership for federal tax purposes.

The office of the lending business was in Chicago. The office was staffed by two full-time employees: an accountant and a secretary.

Mr. Barbara performed all executive functions for the lending business. He decided when to make loans. He decided how to handle defaulted loans. He managed over 40 outstanding loans during the years at issue. He had no other significant work-related demands on his time besides the lending business.

During the years 2009-2012, Mr. Barbara split his time between Chicago and Florida. For each year he was in Chicago, 40% of his time and in Florida 60% of his time. He worked at least 200 days in a year, proportioned between Chicago and Florida on a 40/60 basis.

When in Chicago, Mr. Barbara lived in residences he owned. He was in the Chicago office for about 5-3/4 hours each work day. When there he was working on the lending business. He kept a regular schedule. Therefore, he was in the Chicago office at least 460 hours per year working on the lending business, computed as follows:

200 days x 40% × 5.75 hours = 460 hours per year

When in Florida, Mr. Barbara lived in a house that he had purchased in 1995. He called the Chicago office every day when it opened at 9:00 a.m. He also communicated with the office at other times, through telephone, fax, and e-mail. He averaged at least two hours of work per day on the lending business while in Florida. This means that he worked at least 240 hours per year on the lending business while he lived in Florida, computed as follows:

200 days × 60% × 2 hours = 240 hours per year

One of the issues determined by the US Tax Court was whether Mr. Barbara materially participated in his money lending business.  The significance was that if he did not materially participate the income and losses would be passive.

The court agreed that the activity at issue is all of Mr. Barbara’s lending, whether loans were made individual or through an entity, was active and that he materially participated in the lending business.

For each year, Mr. Barbara’s total hours participating in the lending business were (1) 460 hours or more while in Chicago and (2) 240 hours or more while in Florida.  Thus, his total hours participating in the lending business each year were 700 or more.  This exceeds the 100-hour threshold that is part of the material participation test.

Both while he was in Chicago and in Florida, Mr. Barbara’s participation in the lending business was regular, continuous and substantial.  Accordingly, losses were deductible under IRS Section 162. Moreover, the losses suffered in the prior year could be used to offset income in another year.

The case is significant for two reasons:  First, the material participation test has no geographic limitations; second, the material participation test rest on quantitative i.e. number of hours spent, and qualitative, i.e. the significance of the individuals’ participation, good record keeping is essential.  What kind of record keeping would be needed?  A journal or daily diary detailing the nature of the activity, i.e. telephone calls, examination of records, agreements, etc. and the maintenance of regular business financial records as well as time spent on each activity and so forth.

Meeting the material participation requirements among other requirements might allow a taxpayer to live in a low tax state and yet manage a business in a high tax state. Consider an additional possibility, one that may allow one to avoid these rules.

Puerto Rico enacted a corporate incentive scheme Act 20, that provides a 4% corporate tax on income and zero percent on dividends and capital gains.  A software company could easily avail itself of this opportunity.  There are requirements, such as the hiring of local employees and a business presence, which require more than a nameplate on a wall in a foreign jurisdiction.  Individuals, under Act 22, who are present in Puerto Rico for six months in the prior year, receive government approval and draw a reasonable salary form the relocated business may benefit from this regime.  There is a 100% exemption from Puerto Rican taxes on dividends, interest and capital gains accrued after residency. Act 20 and Act 22 offer an alternative to expatriation and may prove valuable in the right situation. 

While there are obvious geographical and other challenges, the Tax Court has provided a path for the operation of a remote business from a tax friendly jurisdiction.